Dismissed¶21

Ritesh Mirdha v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 May 2025C482/802/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing refused; criminal intimidation Section 506 IPC; threat calls by brother of principal accused; FIR No. 234 of 2020 PS Transit Camp Udham Singh Nagar; false implication relative of co-accused; absence of call detail records not ground to quash; non-reasoned summoning order upheld; cognizance prima facie satisfaction; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; Rudrapur ACJM; neutral citation 2025:UHC:3745; application dismissed 02.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases where continuance of proceedings would cause manifest injustice or abuse of the process of law. ¶12

Ritesh Mirdha Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution of the applicant under Section 506 IPC, based on the stated allegations and resulting charge sheet, warrants interference by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The FIR is neither bald nor vague: it specifically names the applicant and attributes to him acts of criminal intimidation by telephone threats, and the investigation culminated in a charge sheet and summons.

¶14

Key takeaways

Absence of call detail records or corroborative material evidencing the threats may be a valid line of defence at trial but cannot be a basis to quash the proceedings at the threshold; the inherent power is not meant to test probative value or sufficiency of evidence.ratio¶15
At the threshold the Court must only examine whether the material on record, if unrebutted, discloses commission of an offence; the test is not certainty of conviction but whether the accusation is inherently improbable or absurd.ratio¶16
A summoning order need not elaborate every detail or contain reasoning akin to a judgment so long as judicial mind is demonstrably applied; the order dated 10.11.2020 satisfies the minimum legal threshold.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 02.11.2020, the summoning order dated 10.11.2020 and consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 5998 of 2020, arising from FIR No. 234 of 2020, P.S. Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences under Section 506 IPC. The applicant, brother of the principal accused Deepak Mirdha, was alleged to have threatened the complainant with dire consequences over telephone calls. Held, dismissing the application: inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases; the FIR specifically named the applicant and attributed criminal intimidation to him, and was therefore neither bald nor vague; absence of call detail records or corroborative material is a matter of defence at trial and not a ground for quashing at the threshold; a summoning order need not contain detailed reasoning akin to a judgment if judicial mind is demonstrably applied, and the order dated 10.11.2020 met the minimum legal threshold; whether the threats were in fact issued and amount to criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC are factual questions for trial. Reliance placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. (Ashish Naithani, J.)

¶1

2025:UHC:3745

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶3

AT NAINITAL

¶4

Criminal misc. Application No. 802 of 2020

¶5

Ritesh Mirdha ......Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

State of Uttarakhand & Another …..Respondents

¶8

Presence :

¶9

Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned counsel, for the State.

¶10

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

¶11

The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been instituted by the applicant, Ritesh Mirdha, seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 02.11.2020, the summoning order dated 10.11.2020, and the consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 5998 of 2020, titled State of Uttarakhand v. Deepak Mirdha and Another , pending before the Court of the learned In-charge Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate / IInd Additional Civil Judge (SD), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

¶12

The criminal proceedings arise out of FIR No. 234 of 2020 registered at Police Station Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar, on the basis of a complaint lodged by Shivani Tiwari, who alleged that she had developed a personal relationship with co-accused Deepak Mirdha during their employment in a factory at SIDCUL, Pantnagar.

¶13

It is alleged that the said co-accused exploited the complainant physically on the false promise of marriage and later refused to

¶14

¶15

Criminal Misc. Application No.802 of 2020.-----Ritesh Mirdha….Vs……… State and another -

¶16

Ashish Naithani J.

¶17

2025:UHC:3745

¶18

solemnize the marriage. He is also alleged to have assaulted her, threatened to publicize objectionable videos and photographs, and subjected her to repeated abuse and humiliation.

¶19

Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, the allegations are confined to the assertion that he, being the brother of the principal accused, threatened the complainant with dire consequences over telephone calls. The applicant was not named in relation to any sexual misconduct or direct physical assault.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated solely on account of being related to the prime accused. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no independent or corroborative material to support the allegation of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.

¶21

It is further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed in a mechanical manner without application of mind by the Investigating Officer, and that the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate is neither reasoned nor indicative of any satisfaction being recorded on the sufficiency of material.

¶22

It is contended that the absence of call detail records, or any evidence establishing telephonic threats, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations. The applicant argues that the entire proceedings are an abuse of the process of law, instituted only to cause harassment and mental agony.

¶23

Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the application and submits that the FIR discloses a cognizable offence under Section 506 IPC. It is submitted that the applicant was specifically named by the complainant for issuing threats and that this allegation was

¶24

¶25

Criminal Misc. Application No.802 of 2020.-----Ritesh Mirdha….Vs……… State and another -

¶26

Ashish Naithani J.

¶27

2025:UHC:3745

¶28

substantiated during investigation, which culminated in the filing of a charge sheet. The learned Magistrate, upon perusal of the charge sheet and accompanying documents, found sufficient ground to take cognizance and issue process.

¶29

Learned State Counsel further argues that the material on record discloses a prima facie case, and that the question of whether threats were actually extended or whether there exists sufficient proof for conviction are matters for trial. It is urged that the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC ought not to be exercised in routine and that no exceptional circumstance justifying quashing has been made out.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

¶31

The core issue requiring determination is whether the prosecution of the present applicant under Section 506 IPC, based on the stated allegations and resulting charge sheet, warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

¶32

The principles governing the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are well entrenched. Such powers are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in the rarest of rare cases where continuation of criminal proceedings would result in manifest injustice or would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

¶33

The landmark judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , laid down illustrative categories wherein interference may be justified. However, the power is not to be invoked merely because the accused disputes the allegations or contends that the evidence is insufficient to support conviction.

¶34

In the instant case, the FIR does not merely make a bald or vague assertion. It specifically names the applicant and attributes to him acts

¶35

¶36

Criminal Misc. Application No.802 of 2020.-----Ritesh Mirdha….Vs……… State and another -

¶37

Ashish Naithani J.

¶38

2025:UHC:3745

¶39

of criminal intimidation by way of threatening the complainant over telephone. The mobile number of the applicant is mentioned, and the complaint describes the threats as part of a continuum of coercive conduct arising out of the main accused's refusal to marry the complainant after having exploited her emotionally and physically. The investigation, though limited to the offence under Section 506 IPC as far as the applicant is concerned, nevertheless culminated in the submission of a charge sheet and issuance of summons.

¶40

The applicant’s contention that there is no call detail record or corroborative material evidencing such threats may raise a valid line of defence at trial, but such an argument cannot be accepted as a basis to quash the proceedings at the threshold. The inherent power of this Court is not intended to test the probative value or sufficiency of the evidence collected.

¶41

At this stage, the Court must only examine whether the material on record, if unrebutted, discloses the commission of an offence. The test is not whether conviction is certain, but whether the accusation is inherently improbable or absurd.

¶42

As regards the argument that the summoning order is nonreasoned, this court finds no substance in that plea. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance upon due consideration of the charge sheet, case diary, and other prosecution papers, and has recorded a finding of prima facie satisfaction to summon the applicant. The order need not elaborate on every detail, so long as the judicial mind is demonstrably applied. A detailed reasoning akin to a judgment is not required at the stage of summoning. The order dated 10.11.2020 satisfies the minimum legal threshold.

¶43

¶44

Criminal Misc. Application No.802 of 2020.-----Ritesh Mirdha….Vs……… State and another -

¶45

Ashish Naithani J.

¶46

2025:UHC:3745

¶47

It is also well settled that where the FIR discloses a cognizable offence and investigation results in a charge sheet, the High Court should be slow in interdicting the proceedings unless it is apparent that no offence is made out, or that the allegations are mala fide and intended to harass. The applicant, in the present case, has not been able to show that the allegations are patently absurd, inherently improbable, or actuated by mala fides.

¶48

The High Court is not expected to act as an appellate forum over the investigative process. The applicant’s claim that he has been implicated merely because he is the brother of the co-accused may have some emotional resonance, but it is not a legal ground for quashing the charge sheet, especially when a specific role is attributed to him. Whether the threats alleged were in fact issued, and whether they amount to criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 IPC, are factual questions best left for determination during trial.

¶49

In view of the above, I do not find this to be a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised to interfere with the ongoing criminal proceedings.

¶50