Dismissed

Manoj Kumar Sharma and Others v. State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Uttarakhand HC5 Jul 2019C482/1092/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the challen of a summoning order in a suicide case. The Court held that a suicide note is prima facie evidence and the case does not warrant an exception to summon the accused.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the application challenging the summoning order and chargesheet.

Manoj Kumar Sharma and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand… — Cheque Dishonour | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

C482 No. 1092 of 2014

¶2

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

¶3

Mr. Manoj Joshi, Advocate for the applicants.

¶4

Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶5

In the present C-482 Application, the accused applicants, who were named in the F.I.R., being F.I.R. No. 30/13, which has been registered on 3^rd January, 2013, for alleged commission of an offence under Section 306 IPC to be read with Section 3 (1) (x) of S.C. & S.T. Act, they have been named in the F.I.R. as to be one of the co-accused as amongst the other seven co-accused in all, who were involved in the commission of offence under Section 306 I.P.C.

¶6

Consequently, in pursuance to an investigation which was carried, even the Investigating Officer, who has submitted the chargesheet No. 112/13 dated 20^th July, 2013, had ultimately found that the narration of allegation as levelled against the present applicants in the F.I.R. were prima face found to be true and their names were included in the said chargesheet.

¶7

The Investigating Officer at the stage of investigation, had also referred to a suicide note which was left by the deceased Devendra Kumar, who in the suicide note, has yet again specifically mentioned that the present applicants are the persons, who had forced him to commit a suicide and their names were found reference in the suicide note as written by the deceased Devendra Kumar.

¶8

Taking cognizance to the chargesheet submitted by the Investigating Officer on 20^th July, 2013, Criminal Case No. 1485 of 2014, State Vs. Shyam Singh Rana and others was registered before the 1^st Additional Civil

¶9

Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. The learned 1^st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, after considering the chargesheet, case diary and other documents, which finds reference in the summoning order and finding the fact that in accordance with the dying declaration, the accused have been named as to be the prime person who have ebbed forward the deceased to commit suicide, had issued the summoning order dated 1/30.1.14. It is challenging this summoning order and the chargesheet, the present C-482 Application has been filed for questioning the very inception of the Criminal Case No. 1485 of 2014, State Vs. Shyam Singh Rana and others. Simultaneously, the applicants have also challenged the summoning order dated 30^th January, 2014.

¶10

It is socially accepted principle that a person who is forced to commit a suicide, if he leaves a declaration prior to his death in his writing, whereby, if he refers names of some of the persons who are involved in forcing him to commit a suicide, it cannot be prima facie taken to be untrue until and unless it is otherwise proved before the Trial Court during the course of the investigation and trial.

¶11

Without recording any finding pertaining to the propriety of the reference of the names of the present applicants in the F.I.R., which has to be independently decided by the Trial Court during its adjudication but considering the material which has been brought on record in the present C-482 Application and considering the fact that the applicants’ names have been consistently figuring in the F.I.R.; in the chargesheet; in the suicide note and in the summoning order,

¶12

this Court is of the view that prima facie this is not one of those of the rarest case where an exception can be carved out to grant liberty from summoning the present applicants for assisting the Court in the trial of the Criminal Case No. 1485 of 2014, State Vs. Shyam Singh Rana and others.

¶13

Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that it is not such a case where there is any apparent abuse of process, which could call for an interference by the High Court while exercising its extra ordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the C482 Application and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

However, it will be open for the applicants to surrender themselves before the Trial Court within a period of 15 days from today and if on surrendering, they file the bail application, the same would be considered within three days thereafter.

¶16

Subject to above liberty, the C482 Application is dismissed.

¶17

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)

¶18

Dated 05.07.2019 Shiv

Manoj Kumar Sharma and Others v. State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Sharma and Others v. State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Bhist Vs Megha Bhist and Others

Shamsher Singh and Others Vs Bishambar Singh and Others

Smt. Nutan Maheshwari and Another Vs Smt. Usha Gupta and Others

Wazid Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Smt. Suman Devi Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Anees Ahmad Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another