In a criminal miscellaneous application challenging a chargesheet and cognizance order in a case involving assault and grievous injuries, the High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed the petition, holding that the FIR disclosed prima facie offences and the alleged presence of a cross case was not a ground to quash the proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 405 of 2022
Ishacharan and others …........ Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another …..... Respondents
Present : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to the chargesheet dated 15.10.2020, summoning/cognizance order dated 10.03.2021, passed in Criminal Case No. 343 of 2021, State v. Ishacharan and others, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”) as well as the entire proceedings of the case.
2
armed with weapons, forcibly entered into the house of the informant and assaulted the informant, her husband and her brother-in-law, due to which they sustained grievous injuries. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner no. 1 for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506, 307 IPC and against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 452, 504, 506 IPC. On 10.03.2021, cognizance has been taken. It is impugned herein.
3
as hereunder:
“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 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.
(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.
(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.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose
4
the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(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.
(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.
(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 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.
(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.”
commission of offences. According to it, the informant, her husband and her brother-in-law were assaulted with the sharp edged weapons, due to which they sustained grievous injuries. The Investigation Officer found the allegations true and submitted the chargesheet against the petitioners and others. The Investigating Officer has recorded in the chargesheet that during investigation, apart from the statements of witnesses and injured, medical examination reports have also been obtained.
5
Accordingly, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners.
Avneet/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the grounds including alleged absence of FIR and existence of a cross case are sufficient to warrant quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the allegations in the FIR prima facie constitute cognizable offences warranting investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and OthersReferred¶17
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ishacharan and others
State of Uttarakhand
Respondent no. 2
Ravindra Maithani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
