Allowed

Abbas and Others v. State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Uttarakhand HC16 Jul 2019C482/1561/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a C-482 application, the High Court allowed the quashing of criminal proceedings pending before a Magistrate after the State Government decided to withdraw the same FIR charges. The Court applied the principle of consistency.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings pending before the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, Case Crime No. 1346 of 2013, are dropped.

Abbas and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C482 No. 1561 of 2014)

¶3

Abbas and others ..…Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another …Respondents

¶4

Advocate : Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicants Mr. P.S. Bohra, AGA along with Mr. Siddharth Bisht, Brief Holder for the State.

¶5

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

¶6

The applicant to the C-482 application has prayed for quashing of the issuance of the non-bailable warrant against him, vide order dated 2^nd December, 2013, which has been issued by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on 2^nd December 2013, and he has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 4^th September 2014, whereby the proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C has been initiated against the applicant in a Criminal Case No. 1346 of 2013, State v. Abbas and others .

¶7

The precise case, as pleaded in the present C-482 Application by the present applicant is that, an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 221 of 2011, has been registered as against the applicant and other coaccused persons for commission of an offence under Sections 147, 148, 332, 307, 336, 353 and 427 IPC to be read with Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act.

¶8

After the registration of the said Case Crime No. 221 of 2011, an investigation was conducted and the Investigating Officer, on conclusion of the investigation, he has submitted a chargesheet being chargesheet No. 198/12 dated 9^th September 2012. On submission of the chargesheet, proceedings have been registered

¶9

¶10

before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as Criminal Case No. 1346 of 2013, State v. Abbas and others .

¶11

The argument of the learned counsel for the applicants is that after the initiation of the aforesaid criminal proceedings, the State has taken a decision vide its Government Order No. 1248/XX-32013-08(75)/2013 dated 21^st August 2014, wherein the State has taken a decision to withdraw the said case registered as Case Crime No. 221 of 2011.

¶12

The said decision of withdrawal of Criminal Case No. 1346 of 2013, State v. Abbas, was communicated to the concerned Sessions Court and as a consequence thereto, the Sessions Court has passed an order on 21^st February 2015, whereby the Sessions Trial No. 317 of 2013, State v. Iqbal was withdrawn in the light of the decision of the State Government vide Government Order dated 21^st August 2014 which was duly signed by all the parties.

¶13

**eq0v0l a 0%221@2011 /kkjk%147] 148] 332] 307]336 ]353] 427 Hkk0n a 0l a 0 3@4 yksd lEifRr dh {kfr fuokj.k vf/kfu;e o /kkjk 7 fdzfeuy yk W ,esUVesUV ,DV Fkkuk% jkuhiqj ftyk gfj}kjA

¶14

jkT; dh vksj ls ftyk “kklfd; vf/koDrk QkStnkjh Jh bunziky csnh] vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls vf/koDrk%Jh jkds”k dqekj fl a g o Jh jko Qjeku vyh

¶15

fnuk a d% 21&02&2015

¶16

ftyk “kkldh; vf/koDrk QkStnkjh gfj}kj }kjk izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 321 n a 0iz0l0 fnuk a a fdr 22&09&2014 bl vk”k; dk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd mRrjk[k.M “kklu dk “kklukns”k l a [;k 1248@xx&3&2013&08¼75½@2013 fnuk a fdr 21&08&2014 tks ftyk eftLVsªV] gfj}kj dks lEcfU/kr gS] mijksDr okn dks okil ysus gsrq izkIr gqvk gS rFkk mDr vkns”k ds }kjk funsZf”kr fd;k x;k gS fd lEcfU/kr ekeys ds Hkkjlk/kd vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh] U;k;ky; ls l a c a /kh ekeys dks n.M izfdz;k l a fgrk 1973 dh /kkjk 321 ds vUrZxr lEcfU/kr U;k;ky; fd lEefr ls okil ys ys a A vr% ftyk “kkldh; vf/koDrk QkStnkjh }kjk izkFkZuk dh x;h gS fd izLrqr ekeys dks okil fy;s tkus ds vuqefr gsrq vkns”k ikfjr fd;k tk;sA lquk ,o a i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA

¶17

vfHk;kstu dh vksj dk dgk x;k fd ekeyk jkT; ljdkj dh vksj ls jkT; ljdkj ds deZpkjh mifujh{kd njcku fl a g i a okj rRdkyhu Fkkuk/;{k jkuhiqj ds }kjk nk;j fd;k x;k Fkk] ftldks jkT; ljdkj }kjk leLr ifjfLFkfr;ks a dk vk a dyu fd;s tkus ds i”pkr tufgr es a okil fy;k x;kA

¶18

¶19

okn okilh dk fdlh ds }kjk fojks/k ugh a fd;k x;kA vfHk;kstu }kjk “kklukns”k dh izfr nkf[ky dh x;h] ftlds vuqlkj “kklu }kjk n.M izfdz;k l a fgr 1973 dh /kkjk 321 ds rgr lEcfU/kr okn dks U;k;ky; dh lEefr l s okil fy;k tkuk dgk gSA pw W fd jkT; ljdkj }kjk izLrqr vfHk;ksx yksd fgr es a okil ys fy;k x;k gSA vr% ekeys ds rF;ks a ,o a ifjfLFkfr;ks a es a vfHk;kstu i{k dks izLrqr ekeys es a vfHk;ksx okil fy;s tkus dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gSA vfHk;qDrx.k ekS0 bdcky] jko vkQkd vyh] :Lre vyh] vkfcn] yhyk] jCcku] olhe mQZ Mh0ih0] e a lwj vyh v”kjQ] vktkn rsyh] Hkwjk o [kq”khZn dks izLrqr ekeys es a mUeksfpr fd;k tkrk gSA vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk iwoZ es a fu’ikfnr cU/ki= vkns”k dh frfFk ls N% ekg rd /kkjk 437d n0iz0l a a 0 ds v/khu jgsxk] rRi”pkr vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk fu’ikfnr cU/ki= fujLr le>k tk;sxk rFkk mud s tekufr;ks a dks muds nkf;Roks a ls mueksfpr le>k tk;sxkA i=koyh nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA

¶20

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that as a consequence of the withdrawal of the said Sessions Trial No. 317 of 2013, State v. Iqbal in pursuance to the State’ decision dated 21^st August 2014, the proceedings which was pending before the Magistrate concerned arising out of the same FIR and the chargesheet, it too ought to have been withdrawn as a consequence of the State’s decision dated 21^st August 2014. But, since the matter is pending before the Magistrate concerned, he has not passed any order on the same and the applicant has filed the present C-482 Application, seeking withdrawal of the Criminal Case No. 1346 of 2013, State v. Abbas and others pending before the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on the ground that once the decision of the State has been made enforceable by 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge vide its order dated 21^st February, 2015, as against the pendency of the Sessions Trial, the same treatment ought to have been meted out to the proceedings which are pending before the Magistrate as referred hereinabove.

¶21

In view of the fact that once the State has already taken a decision on 21^st August, 2014 to withdraw the entire proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR registered as Case Crime No. 221 of

¶22

¶23

2011, the same treatment deserves to be meted out to the pending proceedings before the Magistrate concerned. Consequently, the proceedings pending before the learned First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar registered as Case Crime No. 1346 of 2013, State v. Abbas and others, which was arising out from same Case Crime No. 221 of 2011 registered under Sections 147, 148, 332, 307, 353, 427, 336 IPC to be read with 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, too would stand dropped in the light of the Government Order dated 21^st August 2014, and order of 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge dated 21^st February, 2015.

¶24

Consequently, the present C-482 Application would stand allowed and the proceedings pending before the 1^st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar by way of Criminal Case No. 1346 of 2013, State v. Abbas and others would too stand dropped in the light of the decision taken by the State Government by virtue of the Government Order dated 21^st August 2014.

¶25

Order accordingly.

¶26

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 16.07.2019

¶27

Mahinder/

Abbas and Others v. State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abbas 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

Suhail Ahmad Khan Vs Mohd Jafar and Another

Parminder Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Noor Hasan Vs Wild Life Institute and Anr.

Mumtaj Hussain and Others Vs Abul Hassain and Others

Smt. Bilkis Fatma and Others Vs Fatehdin and Others

Mangeram and Others Vs Rajkumar and Another