Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 607 (UTT)

RAMESH KUMAR MALIK v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2014-12-24

V.K.BIST

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. On 21.10.2013, a First Information Report was registered with the Police Station, Kankhal, Haridwar on 21.10.2013 under Section 365 and 342 of Indian Penal Code against the applicants with the allegation that they had kidnapped and illegally detained one Nitin Tyagi. This report was registered at the instance of Somdutt Tyagi, grandfather of Nitin Tyagi. On 29.11.2013 charge sheet was filed under Section 365, 342, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., whereupon the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar passed the cognizance order on 02.12.2013. Against the charge sheet and cognizance order, present criminal misc. application has been filed by the applicants. 2. After filing of the First Information Report, certain developments took place, which are being narrated hereinafter. Upon registration of the F.I.R., the applicant no.1 was arrested, whereas the applicant no.2 filed the Criminal Writ Petition No.1257 of 2013 before this Court, in which interim order was granted. Since certain serious allegations were made in the petition against the police, the Court, apart from granting interim protection to the applicant no.2, also passed an order on 28.10.2013, directing the police to produce Nitin Tyagi before the Court on the next date fixed. Subsequently, the applicant no.1 was released on bail. In that Writ Petition (No.1257 of 2013), the complainant filed his affidavit, in which it was stated by him that his grandson Nitin Tyagi had been in the illegal confinement of the local police and even after repeated requests made by the family members, the police was not allowing them to meet Nitin Tyagi. In compliance of Court’s order, Nitin Tyagi was produced before the Court and set free by the Court. 3. The applicants have come up with the case that allegations contained in the F.I.R. are totally baseless. They have been implicated only on account of their relationship with Baba Ramdev, as the applicant no.1 is engaged in security of close family members of Baba Ramdev and the applicant no.2 is the real younger brother of Baba Ramdev. The F.I.R. is politically motivated. It has been stated in the petition that neither applicants kidnapped the victim Nitin Tyagi nor illegally detained him, as alleged in the F.I.R. 4. Along with the present Criminal Misc. Application, an affidavit of Nitin Tyagi has also been annexed, in which he has denied the alleged kidnapping by the applicants. The F.I.R. is politically motivated. It has been stated in the petition that neither applicants kidnapped the victim Nitin Tyagi nor illegally detained him, as alleged in the F.I.R. 4. Along with the present Criminal Misc. Application, an affidavit of Nitin Tyagi has also been annexed, in which he has denied the alleged kidnapping by the applicants. Affidavit of complainant has also been annexed explaining the events, which led to lodging of the F.I.R. 5. One compounding application has also been moved collectively by the applicants as well as by the complainant Somdutt Tyagi and the victim Nitin Tyagi. Both the applicants as well as complainant Somdutt Tyagi and the victim Nitin Tyagi have filed their separate affidavits. In the affidavit of applicant no.1, it is stated that the victim Nitin Tyagi was the employee of the applicant no.2 about two years back and the applicant no.1 is also an employee. The applicant no.2 Ram Bharat is the brother of Baba Ramdev and for this reason, the present F.I.R. was registered being politically motivated, while no such offence has been committed by the applicants and for the reasons, the informant and the victim have given their affidavits, which are annexed with the writ petition and in view of the said affidavits, there is no further dispute between the applicants and the complainant or victim. In the affidavit of applicant no.2, it is stated that the victim Nitin Tyagi was the employee of the applicant no.2 Ram Bharat about two years back. The applicant no.2 is the brother of Baba Ramdev and for this reason, the present F.I.R. was registered due to political reasons and also for extraneous reasons, while no such offence has at all been committed by the applicants and in support of the version of the petitioner, the informant and the victim have given their affidavits to the higher police authorities, which are annexed with the writ petition. In the affidavit of respondent no.3, it is stated that no further dispute is left between the parties, therefore, the informant and his grandson Nitin Tyagi do not wish to continue prosecution against the applicants. In the affidavit of respondent no.2/victim, it is stated that since he had not informed about his whereabouts for 2 to 3 days at his residence, therefore, his grandfather Shri Somdutt Tyagi had given a missing report in the police station. In the affidavit of respondent no.2/victim, it is stated that since he had not informed about his whereabouts for 2 to 3 days at his residence, therefore, his grandfather Shri Somdutt Tyagi had given a missing report in the police station. It is stated that he had not met his grandfather at that time when the information was given to the police but on that day, he finally met his grandfather. Then, he also came to know that on the information given by his grandfather to the local police, a case has been registered against the applicants. Same day i.e. on 21.10.2013, he informed his grandfather that neither he was abducted nor beaten up by the applicant no.2 or by any of his security personnel. It is stated that so far his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the said statement was not made voluntarily by him and was made at the dictates and instance of the local police under grave threat, coercion, fraud and inducement without following the due process of law. It is further stated that in view of the affidavits of the respondent no.2/victim and his grandfather, no further dispute is left between the parties; therefore, the respondent no.2 does not wish to prosecute the applicants. All of them have prayed to dispose of the present criminal misc. application in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 and Dimpey Gujral Vs. Union Territory through Administrator UT Chandigarh and others (2013) (123) AIC 119 (SC) and also to quash the impugned F.I.R. of Case Crime no.166 of 2013 alongwith charge sheet no.87/13 and cognizance order dated 02.12.13 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Haridwar in Case No.2025 of 2013 “State Vs. Rambharat and another”, under Section 365, 342, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar. 6. Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3 submitted that in view of the affidavits of the complainant as well as of the victim, the compounding application deserves to be allowed. 7. Learned Advocate General strongly opposed the compounding application. He submitted that the complainant as well as the victim have now been win over by the accused and their affidavits are under pressure. 7. Learned Advocate General strongly opposed the compounding application. He submitted that the complainant as well as the victim have now been win over by the accused and their affidavits are under pressure. In such circumstances, since the matter was not simple, and rather a case of abduction, no relief can be granted in favour of the applicants. 8. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. This matter required careful scrutiny. Initially, the F.I.R. was registered under Section 365, 342, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and the applicant no.1 was arrested. Applicant no.2 approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court, by considering the affidavit of the complainant, directed the police to produce the victim in the Court. He was produced. After considering everything, he was released. In this criminal misc. application also, the complainant as well as the victim have filed their affidavits and in clear terms, they have stated that the alleged incident did not take place. They have also filed their affidavits alongwith the compounding application. Therefore, this is not a case where offence is committed and at the behest of the complainant as well as victim, criminal case proceeded and at the later stage, the accused as well as victim approached the Court for compromise. Rather, it is a case where the victim, in clear-cut terms, has stated that nothing has happened with him. If argument of respondents’ counsel is accepted and case is kept pending, in that event, in my view, the entire exercise will be a futile exercise. Rather, continuance of case would be abuse of process of law. 9. In view of above discussion, the criminal misc. application is allowed. Charge sheet dated 29.11.2013, bearing no.87 of 2013 filed against the applicants under Section 365, 342, 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., in connection with F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.166 of 2013, Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar as well as the cognizance order dated 02.12.2013 passed by the A.C.J.M, Haridwar, is hereby quashed. Compounding application stands disposed of.