Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 59 (UTT)

Suman Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-02-26

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Since the above noted applications under Section 482 Cr. P.C. arise out of one summoning order, i.e. order dated 13.04.2001, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment and order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. The applicants, by means of present petitions moved under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seek to quash the order dated 13.04.2001 (Annexure-14) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun, as well as the order dated 13.06.2003 (Annexure-16) passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun. 3. The complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) filed a criminal complaint case against Mrs. Suman Singh and Ms. A. Vijaysree (applicants herein) in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun. Statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr. P.C. was recorded. Statements of Ajay Kumar, Anurag Gupta, Dr. Y.S. Thapaliyal, Mahendra Singh and Suresh Kumar were recorded under Section 202 Cr. P.C. Having found a prima facie case against the accused-applicants, they were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506(I) of IPC, vide order dated 13.04.2001 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun. Aggrieved against the said order, separate Criminal Revisions were preferred before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun, which Criminal Revisions were dismissed by learned 2ndAdditional Sessions Judge, Dehradun vide order dated 13.06.2003. Aggrieved against the same, present applications under Section 482 Cr. P.C. were filed by the applicants. 4. According to the complainant, a criminal case for possession of forged and counterfeit currency-notes was instituted against the complainant, who was facing departmental inquiry in that connection. The complainant was directed to submit his explanation in person. On 09.05.2000, when the complainant reached there at 12:40 pm, he was called by Mrs. Suman Singh (applicant herein) in her room. Miss A. Vijayasree (applicant herein) was present there. They stopped the complainant from entering into the room. They refused to show papers to the complainant. Both the accused persons (applicants herein) hurled abuses at the complainant. Miss A. Vijayasree pulled the heir of the complainant and Mrs. Suman Singh tried to assault on the head of the complainant. As a consequence of which, complainant sustained grievous injuries. The shirt of the complainant was torn. Complainant was also threatened with dire consequences. Both the accused persons (applicants herein) hurled abuses at the complainant. Miss A. Vijayasree pulled the heir of the complainant and Mrs. Suman Singh tried to assault on the head of the complainant. As a consequence of which, complainant sustained grievous injuries. The shirt of the complainant was torn. Complainant was also threatened with dire consequences. Complainant got himself examined by the Medical Officer and also reported the matter to SSP, Dehradun, but since police did not take any action in the matter, therefore, the complainant had no option, but to file the present criminal complaint case. 5. In his statement under Section 200 Cr. P.C. the complainant Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari supported the complaint story. Witness Ajay Kumar stated that on 09.05.2000, at 2:00 pm, when he was going to polytechnic school, he met the complainant near the gate of the school. His head was bleeding. When Ajay Kumar inquired from the complainant as to what happened, he stated that two women assaulted him. Witness Anurag Gupta was called by the complainant Rameshwar Prasad in polytechnic, whereupon he found that Rameshwar Prasad’s head was bleeding. The accused persons were hurling abuses at the complainant. Witness Suresh Kumar saw the complainant on 09.05.2000, at 2:50 pm, in the ground of polytechnic. The accused persons were threatening him with dire consequences. Rameshwar Prasad’s head was bleeding. Witness Mahendra Singh also saw the complainant bleeding and the accused persons threatening him. 6. Dr. Y.S. Thapaliyal, Emergency Medical Officer, Doon Hospital, Dehradun examined the injuries of Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari on 09.05.2000, at 5:00 pm. The medical officer found:- (i) Lacerated wound of size 1:00 cm x 0.25 cm on the right parietal region and scalp. Wound was muscle deep with fresh bleeding from the wound, 7:00 cm above the right year. (ii) An abrasion of size 3:00 cm x 2 cm on the right elbow. Oozing of blood was present. According to the medical officer, both the injuries were simple and were caused by hard and blunt object. Both the injuries were fresh in nature. 7. Although a prima facie case against the applicants is made out on the basis of statements of the complainant and his witnesses, but there is something more to it than meets the eye. According to the medical officer, both the injuries were simple and were caused by hard and blunt object. Both the injuries were fresh in nature. 7. Although a prima facie case against the applicants is made out on the basis of statements of the complainant and his witnesses, but there is something more to it than meets the eye. On the one hand, the Court has to find out whether the foundation of criminal offences is laid against the applicants or not, and, at the same time, the Court has to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of any Court. 8. The incident allegedly took place on 09.05.2000. Attention of this Court is drawn towards the letter dated 11.05.2000 (Annexure-5) written by the applicants to the Senior Superintendant of Police, Dehradun. In such letter, it was written, among other things, that the complainant was given last opportunity to examine the documents by 09.05.2000 and to file his explanation by 15.05.2000. When the complainant Mr. Rameshwar Tiwari understood that he would not be able to prolong the submission of his explanation, he came to the office of the institute at about 12:45 hours for inspecting the desired documents. After inspecting the documents, Shri Tiwari left at about 3:00 pm. Next day, a news item was published in a Hindi daily. In the said news item, the allegations of assault were levelled against the Principal and Vice Principal of the institute, which allegations were totally false, and were made out of retaliation for ill will and ulterior motives. The same was an after thought. 9. Whereas such an application was given by the applicants to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, on 11.05.2000, complainant took about a fortnight to file a criminal complaint case against the applicants in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, II, Dehradun. This fact has been brought on record that a criminal case under Section 489 (c) IPC was pending against him (complainant). The same was instituted when the police conducted raid in the institute premises and the complainant was caught red handed with fake/counterfeit currency notes. 10. The statement of Dr. Y.S. Thapaliyal, Emergency Medical Officer, Doon Hospital, Dehardun proved to be the death knell of the complaint story. Dr. Thapaliyal has stated in his statement under Section 202 Cr. The same was instituted when the police conducted raid in the institute premises and the complainant was caught red handed with fake/counterfeit currency notes. 10. The statement of Dr. Y.S. Thapaliyal, Emergency Medical Officer, Doon Hospital, Dehardun proved to be the death knell of the complaint story. Dr. Thapaliyal has stated in his statement under Section 202 Cr. P.C. that the injuries, as sustained by the complainant, were not possible to have been inflicted on 09.05.2000 between 1:30 to 2:00 pm. It is a definite case of the complainant that the accused persons inflicted injuries on him between 1:30 pm to 2:00 pm. None of the complainant’s witnesses saw the incident. They saw bleeding on the head of the complainant. They saw the bleeding when the complainant was coming out of the gate of Polytechnic. The injuries to the complainant is admitted, but when the Medical Officer says that such injuries could not have been sustained by the injured-complainant between 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm, i.e. the time of alleged incident, how can any Court believe the complaint story. The narrow inspection hole through which this Court is expected to look into the matter under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is- whether foundation of criminal offence is laid against the applicants? Further, whether the initiation of proceedings by the complainant would result in abuse of the process of the Court? This Court is certainly not expected to evaluate the evidence. It has not to go into such deep, as the Trial Court or the Appellate Court normally does. But when the very foundation of complaint story falls to the ground, then this Court can certainly interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 11. It is in the background of this case that this Court is reminded of the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 herein below: “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. it is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. it is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 12. The High Court has been vested with inherent power to achieve a salutary public purpose. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986, has held that where the court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Court or that interest of justice favours otherwise, it may quash the proceedings. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone the courts exist. The instant case appears to be one such case, in which the proceedings against the applicants should be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 13. An attempt is also made by the learned counsel for the applicants to show that a settlement took place between Principal of the institute and Rameshwar Prasad Tiwari (respondent no. 2). A copy of such settlement-deed is filed as annexure-2 to the Restoration Application filed on behalf of the applicants. This Court is not inclined to go into the question as to what will be the effect of such settlement dated 29.03.2004 on the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent no.2 against the applicants. 2). A copy of such settlement-deed is filed as annexure-2 to the Restoration Application filed on behalf of the applicants. This Court is not inclined to go into the question as to what will be the effect of such settlement dated 29.03.2004 on the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent no.2 against the applicants. In the aforesaid discussion, this Court has come to the conclusion that continuation of the criminal complaint case and proceedings emanating therefrom (by the respondent no. 2 against the applicants) will amount to abuse of the process of the Court, primarily on account of three important reasons, viz. (a) No witness saw the assault being committed on the complainant. They only saw bleeding on his head and when enquired, the complainant replied that the same was inflicted by the applicants. (b) Medical Officer’s statement proved to be the last straw on the back of Camel. The medical officer said, in no unequivocal terms, that the injuries were not inflicted at the time, the same were projected in the complaint-story. (c) A criminal case of possessing fake and counterfeit currency notes was pending against the complainant, departmental proceedings were initiated against him and present complaint case, filed again 15 days of the incident appears to be counterblast to the said proceedings to divert the attention of superior authorities, gain time and strike a deal, which he finally did. 14. As a consequence thereof, both the applications under Section 482 Cr. P.C. deserve to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The order dated 13.04.2001 (Annexure-14) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 685 of 2000, as well as the order dated 13.06.2003 (Annexure-16) passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun are hereby quashed.