Dismissed

Vinay Kannojiya v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC3 Dec 2021C482/1728/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, exercising inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, rejected the petitioners' challenge to cognizance and charge sheet filings. Relying on Bhajan Lal, the court held that as specific allegations exist and the case merits a trial, no interference is warranted under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed in limine without any interference in the criminal proceedings.

Vinay Kannojiya Vs State of Uttarakhand — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Misc. Application No. 1728 of 2021

¶3

Vinay Kannojiya and another ......Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand and another ….Respondents

¶6

Present:

¶7

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

¶9

Challenge in this petition has been made to the cognizance order dated 17.09.2021 as well as charge sheet dated 10.07.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2219 of 2021, State Vs. Vinay Kannojiya and another, under Sections 341, 353, 504 IPC, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital (for short, “the case”).

¶10

FIR in the instant case was lodged by the respondent no.2 Sub-Inspector, Police against the petitioners on 04.07.2021 under Sections 341, 353 and 504 IPC. According to it, on 04.07.2021, when the informant was in law and order duty deputed at Kainchi Dham Temple, Bhowali, she spotted a vehicle bearing Registration No.UP24 CD-6978 (“the vehicle”), which had obstructed the traffic and there was a traffic jam. The

¶11

¶12

petitioners were occupants of the vehicle. They were asked to park the vehicle properly. Instead, according to the FIR, the petitioners left the vehicle unattended in the middle of the road and obstructed the informant in discharge of her duties. They misbehaved with the informant, shoved and pushed her. There was no document of the vehicle with the petitioners. It is this FIR in which, after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance was taken, which is impugned herein.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶14

Alongwith the petition, a compact disc (“CD”) annexure 2 has been filed, which has been run during the course of hearing in the open Court.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the video, which is captured in the CD was made by the petitioners. The informant in that video is questioning the driver of some other vehicle.

¶16

The video shows that the person, who is making video is also narrating as to what has happened. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

¶17

¶18

there is no evidence that the petitioners are interrupting in the discharge of the duties of respondent no.2. The following points have also been raised by the learned counsel:-

¶19

(i) There is no evidence that the petitioners blocked the movement of vehicles.

¶20

(ii) If the petitioners did not have any document relating to their vehicle, proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act,1988 would have been taken. But, it is argued that, in fact, the informant slapped the petitioners and lodged the FIR, which she could not have done.

¶21

(iii) The petitioners had given a report to DGP, Uttarakhand, which has been placed on record. In that report, inquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer of the same Police Station where the informant was posted, therefore, the Inquiry Officer concluded against the version of the petitioners. Learned counsel also referred to such statements recorded during inquiry by the Circle Officer to argue that,

¶22

¶23

in fact, those statements are

¶24

contradictory.

¶25

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that whatever arguments have been made, they touch upon the factual aspects of the case. The video as captured in the CD also reveals that it is the petitioners, who obstructed the informant in discharge of duties. The FIR is named and there are specific allegations against the petitioners and no interference is warranted.

¶26

This is petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Generally, if an FIR discloses commission of offence, interference is not warranted. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is much large which is guided by the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶27

In the case of Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

¶28

In the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held as hereunder:-

¶29

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the

¶30

¶31

inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶32

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶33

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶34

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶35

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶36

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶37

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the

¶38

¶39

institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶40

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶41

As stated, the petitioners have enclosed a compact disc as annexure 2. Display of it, does not reveal that no case is made out. Perusal of the video also does not make out a case, which may warrant any interference. There are specific allegations in the FIR, as to how the petitioners left their vehicle unattended in the middle of the road and obstructed the informant in discharge of her duties and misbehaved with her. The Police has also conducted an inquiry in detail and did not take any action on the complaint of the petitioners.

¶42

The Court cannot comment on the inquiry as to whether, it is correct or not. The Court also cannot comment on the truthfulness of the averments as made in the FIR. They would definitely fall for scrutiny during trial. The arguments as raised may be taken as defences by the petitioners, if so advised.

¶43

¶44

Having considered the submissions, this Court is of the view that this matter does not require any interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶45

The petition is dismissed in limine .

¶46

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 03.12.2021

¶47

Jitendra

Vinay Kannojiya v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kannojiya v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Abdul Khalid Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dharmenra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chirag Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand

Himanshu Rawat Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rekha Gupta Vs State of Uttarakhand

Anupam B Vyas the Then G. M (R) Food Corporation of India Dehradun Vs Union of India through Secretary