Dismissed

Thakur Ji Chaturvedi and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Uttarakhand HC9 Oct 2013C482/221/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings as a prima facie case was established. The Court directed surrender and fast-track disposal of bail applications for the applicants.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; directions given to decide bail applications expeditiously upon surrender.

Thakur Ji Chaturvedi and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand… — Quashing and FIR | Uttarakhand HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 221 of 2010

¶2

Thakur Ji Chaturvedi and others

¶3

……. Applicants

¶4

versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand and others ……. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the applicants.

¶7

Mr. M.A. Khan, AGA and Mr. P.S. Saun, AGA for the State / respondents no. 1 and 2.

¶8

Mr. Bhuwnesh Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

¶9

U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)

¶10

The applicants, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the charge-sheet no. 185 of 2009, dated 29.09.2009; summoning order dated 25.01.2010, as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 69 of 2010, arising out of case crime no. 216 of 2009, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 of IPC, pending before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.

¶11

Informant-respondent no. 3 lodged an FIR on 29.06.2009, at police station Jwalapur, District Haridwar against the accused applicants under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 of IPC. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the selfsame offences. Cognizance was taken on the same and the accused-applicants were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was moved.

¶12

¶13

As per the FIR, respondent no. 3, who is an Advocate by profession, was sitting in his residencecum-office and talking to his client on 29.06.2009, at around 11:00 P.M. In the meantime, the accusedapplicants trespassed into the house of respondent no. 3, hurled abuses at him and assaulted him. Applicants no. 1 and 3 took out knife, applicant no. 4 caught hold of respondent no. 3 and applicant no. 2 assaulted respondent no. 3 with sticks, as a consequences of which, respondent no. 3 sustained injuries. On alarm being raised, some persons of the locality came. The accused persons threatened respondent no. 3 with dire consequences and fled away. A litigation is pending between the applicants and respondent no. 3.

¶14

On perusal of FIR and other documents, a prima facie case against the applicants in respect of offences complained of against them is made out. There is, therefore, no scope for interference in the proceedings of the court below in view of the pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986, wherein hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. One of the principle is that the Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are

¶15

¶16

so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the court may interfere. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.

¶17

¶18

No interference is called for in the impugned summoning order also at this stage, as would be evidenced from the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330. Paragraph no. 28 of the said ruling is reproduced here-in-below for convenience:

¶19

“28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality

¶20

to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie

¶21

¶22

evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.”

¶23

The foundation of offences is laid against the applicants in the present case.

¶24

It is settled law that 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. The applicants, in the instant case, are unable to pass those tests.

¶25

Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is therefore dismissed, but with the direction upon learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar to decide the bail application(s) of women applicants no. 2 and 4 on the same day, subject to their surrender. Applicants no. 1 and 3 are also directed to surrender before learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, and on their seeking bail, their bail application(s) shall be decided by the court concerned as expeditiously as possible and without unreasonable delay.

¶26

Dt. October 09, 2013. Negi

Thakur Ji Chaturvedi and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakur Ji Chaturvedi and Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

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

Atul Patwal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Taslim and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Naresh Kumar Sharma Vs Smt. Urmila Sharma

Vipin Kumar Vs Km. Chesta Minor

Smt. Taranjeet Kaur and Another Vs State and Another

Shamim Ahmad Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another