Dismissed

Akshilesh Alias Akhil Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC18 Apr 2022C482/474/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed a criminal miscellaneous application challenging a summons order issued against petitioners accused of assault and unlawful entry. The court held that a prima facie case of offence was made out despite property disputes. It further ruled that non-compliance with mandatory requirements regarding the list of prosecution witnesses constitutes only an irregulari

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed in limine with no interference being warranted in the matter summons.

Akshilesh Alias Akhil Sharma Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Misc. Application No.474 of 2022

¶3

Akhilesh @ Akhil Sharma and others ......Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand and another ….Respondents

¶6

Present:

¶7

Mr. Pranav Singh , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Jemini, D.A.G for the State.

¶8

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

¶9

The challenge in this petition is made to the summoning order dated 05.01.2022 passed in Complaint Case no. 202 of 2021, Sanjay Pradhan Vs. Akhilesh @ Akhil Sharma and others, by the court of Judicial Magistrate/1^st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haridwar (for short, “the case”).

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

The case is based on an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) filed by the respondent no.2 Sanjay Pradhan (the complainant). According to it, on 24.01.2021, when the complainant was in his residence, the petitioners abused him, threatened him to life and entered his house

¶12

¶13

armed with Lathi and Danda and assaulted him. Due to which, he sustained injuries. This application under Section 156 (3) of the Code was treated as a complaint. The complainant was examined under Section 200 of the Code. He has reiterated the version of the complaint. The complainant has stated that on the date of incident, when he was assaulted and beaten with danda , he sustained injuries; he got medical examination done. At the stage of inquiry under section 202 of the Code, Kartikey Pradhan and Rashmi Pradhan have been examined. They have also supported the case of the complainant. After inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code, by the impugned order, the petitioners have been summoned to answer the accusations under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complaint is false; the property is disputed; the parties are relatives. In order to grab the property, a false complaint has been filed. It is argued that since the property is disputed, no offence under Section 452 IPC is made out. Apart from it, learned counsel would also argue that before issuing summons, list of witnesses has not been filed by the complainant, which is mandatory requirement of Section 202 of the Code. Therefore, on that ground alone, interference is warranted.

¶15

¶16

If a property is in dispute, it does not give any person right to enter into the residence of someone to commit some offence. This Court is not making this observation qua the instant case.

¶17

It is petition under Section 482 of the Code. If prima facie case is made out no interference is warranted, in such matters, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. The application under Section 156 (3) of the Code, which has been treated as complaint reveals commission of offences. It speaks of the incident dated 24.01.2021. The complainant has supported his version. He has stated that he sustained injuries and he was medically examined. There are other witnesses also, who have stated about it. It is categorical case of the complainant that the petitioners entered into his house, abused and beaten him with Lathi and Danda. Therefore, prima facie, case is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners shall have immense opportunities to test the credibility, reliability and truthfulness of the complainant and the witnesses that may be examined during trial.

¶18

Non compliance of sub-Section (2) of Section 204 of the Code has also been argued. This sub-Section is as

¶19

hereunder:-

¶20

¶21

“(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed.”

¶22

It is true that above sub-Section mandates that

¶23

until the list of prosecution witnesses has been filed, summon and warrant may not to be issued. But, non compliance of it, per se does not vitiate the process. It is initial stage of the criminal trial. No prejudice has yet been caused to the petitioners. On their appearance, the petitioners may insist for such list of witnesses. This may at the most be termed as an irregularity and once indicated at the very initial stage, it may very well be rectified. The court below may direct the complainant to file a list of witnesses before proceeding further in the matter.

¶24

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in this matter. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶25

The petition is dismissed in limine.

¶26

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.04.2022

¶27

Jitendra

Akshilesh Alias Akhil Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshilesh Alias Akhil Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeneva Talwar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sunl Ghildiyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mehtab Vs State of Uttarakhand

Furkan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ravi Kant Ghildiyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Satnam Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand