Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 101 (UTT)

RAMESH KUMAR KASHYAP v. REENA KASHYAP

2015-03-02

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) The applicants, by means of present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 23.08.2011, as also entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 1502 of 2011, captioned as Smt. Reena Vs Mukesh and others, relating to offences punishable under Sections 324 and 498A IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital. 2. A criminal complaint case was filed against the present applicants, namely, Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, Smt. Kalawati and Mukesh Kashyap, Rakesh, Sher Singh and Teeka Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 498A IPC. The applicants moved an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court and criminal proceedings pending against applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6, namely, Rakesh, Sher Singh and Teeka Singh before the court below were stayed by this Court vide order dated 29.03.2011. The first three applicants had to face the trial. They faced the trial and were exonerated of the charges levelled against them vide judgment and order dated 06.12.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar. 3. Whereas those who have been exonerated are father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband of the victim, present applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6 are respectively, brother-in-law, maternal uncle-in-law and brother of maternal uncle-in-law of the victim. 4. Learned counsel for applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6, therefore, seek to apply the principle of stare decisis (to abide by precedents where the same points come again in litigation). 5. When all the applicants were summoned by a common order of the trial court and three of them viz. husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, who withstood trial and have been acquitted by the trial court of the charges levelled against them, applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6, who are brother-in-law, maternal uncle-in-law and brother of maternal uncle-in-law, comparatively distant relatives, would have met the same fate had they also withstood trial. 6. This Court is, therefore, inclined to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6 that they should be granted the benefit of principle of stare decisis. 7. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6, therefore, deserves to be allowed, in as much as they would have met the same fate as was met by applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6 that they should be granted the benefit of principle of stare decisis. 7. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of applicant nos. 4, 5 and 6, therefore, deserves to be allowed, in as much as they would have met the same fate as was met by applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely, Ramesh Kumar Kashyap, Smt. Kalawati and Mukesh Kashyap. 8. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed. Summoning order dated 23.08.2011, as also entire proceedings of criminal case no. 1502 of 2011, captioned as Smt. Reena Vs Mukesh and others, relating to offences punishable under Sections 324 and 498A IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital so far as it relates to applicant no. 4 Rakesh, applicant no. 5 Sher Singh and applicant no. 6 Teeka Singh are hereby quashed.