Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 783 (UTT)

Raman Kanwar v. State of Uttarakhand

2013-12-05

U.C.DHYAN

body2013
Judgment (oral) : By way of present application / petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the order dated 18.10.2013, passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) / Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. Applicant also seeks a direction to Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) / Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar to hear the bail application of applicant expeditiously in the light of judgment passed in WPCRL no. 758 of 2013 (Hari Gupta vs State of Uttarakhand) dated 26.06.2013, judgment dated 12.08.2013 passed in I Bail Application No. 982 of 2013 and also to grant interim protection until the same is disposed of. 2) An FIR was lodged by the informant (respondent no. 2 herein) against six accused persons, including the applicant, on 03.05.2012, at police station Kotwali, Roorkee, which was registered as case crime no. 130 of 2012 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only against three accused persons, including the applicant, for the selfsame offences. Whereas the applicant is the husband of the daughter of respondent no. 2, the other charge-sheeted accused are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the daughter of respondent no. 2. Cognizance was taken on the said charge-sheet by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee and accused persons, including the applicant, were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3) Aggrieved against the same, an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed before this Court on 25.06.2013. When the aforesaid application, being C-482 application No. 620 of 2013, was taken up for admission on 03.07. 2013, this Court directed as under: “Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Sohail Ahmad Siddiqui, AGA for the respondent State. Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for respondent no. 2. As prayed for, two weeks’ time is granted to learned counsel for respondent no. 2 to file counter affidavit. List two weeks hence. An FIR in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged against the accused persons, including the present applicants. Applicant no. 1 is husband, applicant no. 2 is father-in-law and applicant no. 3 is mother-in-law of the daughter of respondent no. 2. List two weeks hence. An FIR in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged against the accused persons, including the present applicants. Applicant no. 1 is husband, applicant no. 2 is father-in-law and applicant no. 3 is mother-in-law of the daughter of respondent no. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that non-bailable warrants have been issued against the applicants and the dispute has to be settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Mediation Center as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is provided, as an interim measure, that non-bailable warrants issued against applicants no. 2 and 3 shall be kept in abeyance till the next date of listing.” 4) Prayer sought for in C-482 petition no. 620 of 2013 was as under: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the Cognizance Order dated 14.08.2012 passed by A.C.J.M, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Case No. 1492 of 2012 and please to quash the proceedings of Case No. 1492 of 2012, State Vs Raman Kanwar and others u/s 498 A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and ¾ of the D.P. Act pending before the Court of the A.C.J.M., Roorkee, District Haridwar, and or pass any appropriate order in the light of facts and circumstances as stated in the present affidavit filed in support of the present application, otherwise the Applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Case No. 1492 of 2012, State Vs Raman Kanwar and others, u/s 498 A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and ¾ of the D.P. Act, pending before the Court of A.C.J.M., Roorkee, District Haridwar, during the pendency of present application, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.” 5) Now, by way of present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (C-482 application no. 1221 of 2013) the applicant seeks to quash the order dated 18.10.2013, passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) / Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. The said order is being reproduced here-in-below for ready reference: “Called out. The accused persons are not present. Learned counsel appearing for the informant moved application praying for issuance of process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against accused Raman Kanwar. Heard. Allowed. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) / Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. The said order is being reproduced here-in-below for ready reference: “Called out. The accused persons are not present. Learned counsel appearing for the informant moved application praying for issuance of process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against accused Raman Kanwar. Heard. Allowed. Let NBW and process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against accused Raman Kanwar fixing 29.11.2013 to appear. A DO letter be sent to the Commissioner of Police to get these processes executed against accused urgently.” 6) When cognizance was taken on the charge-sheet of case crime no. 130 of 2012 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, summons were issued to the accused-applicant. The same was challenged by the applicant by filing C-482 petition no. 620 of 2013. When the applicant-husband did not appear before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, he issued non-bailable warrant alongwith process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. against the accused. The same is now being challenged by way of filing another application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which application is not maintainable and as such, subsequent relief as sought for by the applicant in the case in hand, also cannot be granted. It may be pointed out here that C-482 petition no. 620 of 2013 is also listed for hearing before this Court today, in which learned counsel for respondent no. 2 sought further time to file counter affidavit, which is allowed in the interest of justice. 7) In a nutshell, when a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the applicant to quash the cognizance order and the entire proceedings of a criminal case pending against him, another petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing a subsequent order passed by the trial court in the same proceedings, is not maintainable. 8) It is, therefore, not possible for this Court to grant any of the reliefs sought for by the applicant in present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9) Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being C-482 No. 1221 of 2013 is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable.