Allowed

Devendra Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Uttarakhand HC22 Oct 2013C482/185/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand quashed criminal proceedings captioned Mohini Devi vs Devendra Singh under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as a counterblast filed to challenge the applicants' earlier valid complaint, to prevent abuse of court process.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed; summoning order dated 27.01.2010 and criminal case no. 05 of 2010 quashed qua applicants.

Devendra Singh and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 185 of 2010

¶2

Devendra Singh and others

¶3

……. Applicants

¶4

versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand and another ……. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. M.A. Khan, AGA with Mrs. Mamta Bisht, AGA for the State / respondent no. 1.

¶7

Mr. Amish Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no. 2.

¶8

U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)

¶9

The applicants, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 27.01.2010, as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 05 of 2010, captioned as Mohini Devi vs Devendra Singh and others, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora.

¶10

Applicant Devendra Singh filed a criminal complaint case against Narendra Singh and Smt. Mohini Devi in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 392 of IPC. According to Devendra Singh, the incident took place on 24.02.2009, at 06:15 P.M., near Sun temple. Such complaint was filed by Devendra Singh on 10.06.2009. Devendra Singh wrote in his complaint that Narendra Singh and Mohini Devi hurled abuses at him and his son. Narendra Singh was armed with stick. Mohini Devi was carrying sickle in her hand. Both of them assaulted Devendra Singh with kicks and fists, as a

¶11

¶12

consequence of which, Devendra Singh sustained injuries. Smt. Mohini Devi wanted to inflict blow of sickle upon complainant Devendra Singh, but she could not do so, in as much as, son of the complainant snatched sickle from her and threw it away. Complainant Devendra Singh gave a report to Tehsildar, Almora. Complainant also got his injuries examined by the Medical Officer at District Hospital, Almora. Narendra Singh and Mohini Devi faced the trial. Certified copy of the judgment dated 06.11.2012, rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora in criminal case no. 397 of 2009, is placed before this Court to show that Narendra Singh and Smt. Mohini Devi were convicted under Section 323 of IPC and were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. The prosecution version as forwarded by Devendra Singh was, therefore, proved and affirmed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶13

As a counterblast, present respondent no. 2 filed a criminal complaint case against present applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 352, 354, 504, 506, 427, 448 of IPC. The incident allegedly took place on the same day i.e. 24.02.2009, at 06:00 P.M. The said complaint was filed by Smt. Mohini Devi on 12.01.2010.

¶14

Whereas Devendra Singh (present applicant) filed criminal complaint case against Narendra Singh and Mohini Devi on 10.06.2009, criminal complaint by present complainant-respondent no. 2 Mohini Devi was filed as a counterblast against the applicants on 12.01.2010.

¶15

¶16

It is indicated by the applicants in paragraph no. 17 of the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. that on the basis of a report dated 25.02.2009 by respondent no. 2, proceedings under Section 107 / 116 of Cr.P.C., registered against applicant no. 1, were finally decided in his favour.

¶17

The contention of Smt. Mohini Devi and Narendra Singh was considered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, but the said contention did not find favour with him. On the other hand, the complaint version forwarded by Devendra Singh was accepted by the trial court. On the basis of such acceptance, Narendra Singh and Smt. Mohini Devi were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. The contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the proceedings of criminal complaint case were filed by Smt. Mohini Devi as a counterblast and in order to meet the challenge of the complaint filed by Devendra Singh, gains strength. The said contention of learned counsel for the applicants is substantiated by the judgment rendered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora on 06.11.2012, passed in criminal case no. 397 of 2009.

¶18

It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986 , that where the court finds that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to the abuse of the process of the court, inherent jurisdiction of the court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be resorted to. Such power is

¶19

¶20

to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exists.

¶21

Although inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself, but the instant case appears to be one such case in which this Court should step in to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

¶22

As a consequence thereof, application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed. Summoning order dated 27.01.2010, as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 05 of 2010, captioned as Mohini Devi vs Devendra Singh and others, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora are hereby quashed qua applicants.

¶23

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)

¶24

Dt. October 22, 2013. Negi

Devendra Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Kumar Tyagi Vs Prashant Kumar Gupta

Smt Madhvi and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Gopal Kapoor and Another Vs State of Uttarakhand

Tauhid and Anr. Vs Sibtain Khan

Dilshad Vs Smt. Dilruba

Prem Shankar Pal and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another