Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 539 (UTT)

Kamal Gupta v. Asha Sharma

2016-09-01

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. All the three petitions, titled-above, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are being taken up for adjudication, being clutched together, as all those pertain to a quarrel between the next-door neighbours and it appears that these are intermingled with each other, though arising out of two different complaint cases but between the same parties who are nurturing their differences almost for a decade. 2. The dispute erupted when Mr. Kamal Gupta strived to dismantle the projection raised by Mr. Narendra Sharma to erect his own wall. The heated exchange and altercations grew up, inasmuch as, the same led both the parties to move to the police station in order to lodge the first information reports against each other but the police recorded only the Non-Cognizable Reports and did not take any action. So, the Complaint Case No.2623 of 2006 was filed by Smt. Asha Sharma against Mr. Kamal Gupta and his family members, narrating two incidents of dated 26.9.2006 at 7 PM and another being 29.9.2006 at 5:45 PM, based upon the medical reports, more prominently, showing injury report on the head of Smt. Asha Sharma, indicating a lacerated wound measuring 1.5 cm x 0.25 cm. The cognizance was taken by the Magistrate concerned on 10.7.2007 for the offences of Section 324, 504 and 427 IPC and vide order dated 5.7.2013, Charge under the aforesaid Sections was framed by the Trial Court. Revision filed there-against was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun. Then, Mr. Kamal Gupta filed the C482 Petition No.1475/2014, titled above, wherein the order was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court directing that if the application for adjournment is moved by the applicants before the Trial Court, the same shall favourably be considered. The said order is persisting till now. 3. Although, another case initiated at the instance of Mr. Kamal Gupta for the offence of Section 500 IPC was compounded between the parties, probably with the hope that Smt. Asha Sharma will ‘not press’ her complaint case, but when she came to know that Mr. The said order is persisting till now. 3. Although, another case initiated at the instance of Mr. Kamal Gupta for the offence of Section 500 IPC was compounded between the parties, probably with the hope that Smt. Asha Sharma will ‘not press’ her complaint case, but when she came to know that Mr. Kamal Gupta has also launched another complaint case on 12.7.2007 showing occurrence of same incident of 2.4.2007 at 8:30 PM, wherein, Smt. Asha Sharma along with her family members as well as one of her witnesses Sushil Kumar, were made the accused, then she retracted from the same, with the result, she did not make the endorsement of ‘not pressed’ in her ongoing complaint case. 4. The complaint launched by Mr. Kamal Gupta was also challenged by way of revision, wherein, the order of framing the Charge by the Magistrate concerned was sustained, where-against the C482 Petition No.540 of 2016 has been filed which is pending adjudication before this Court. 5. On one hand, Mr. Kamal Gupta procured a favourable order from this Court, but on the other, he was pressing the Complaint No.219 of 2014 which was not being permitted to proceed further by Mr. Narendra Sharma (husband of Smt. Asha Sharma), as no cross-examination u/s 246 Cr.P.C. was being made from Mr. Gupta even after taking the repeated adjournments and ultimately, the Court was constrained to close such opportunity of cross-examination of Mr. Gupta, where-against the third C482 Petition No. 1093 of 2016 has been filed in this Court, seeking to open the opportunity of cross-examination. 6. In my opinion, the complaint cases launched by Smt. Asha Sharma as well as by Mr. Narendra Gupta are of the period which has the time gap difference of at least 10 years, therefore, both the complaint cases are different and it further divulges that these are the outcome of mutual rivalry and the neighbour jealous attitude pervading among them. However, both the parties have the right to put up and contest their cases before the Magistrate. 7. In the wake of what has been set forth above, I do not find any force in the C482 Petitions No.1475 of 2014 & 540 of 2016. So, both these petitions are dismissed. 8. However, both the parties have the right to put up and contest their cases before the Magistrate. 7. In the wake of what has been set forth above, I do not find any force in the C482 Petitions No.1475 of 2014 & 540 of 2016. So, both these petitions are dismissed. 8. At the same time, C482 Petition No.1093 of 2016, moved by Narendra Sharma and his family members, is allowed with a direction to the Magistrate that he will permit the Defence Counsel to cross-examine Mr. Kamal Kumar Gupta, who will appear in the witness box only once more. If this opportunity is not availed by the defence counsel, then the order of the Magistrate, closing the opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Kamal Gupta, will be deemed to have been sustained. Needless to mention that this will be the last opportunity for the purpose. 9. The remaining proceedings will be carried out in the Court below in accordance with law. 10. Both the complaint cases launched by the parties against each other will be fixed on the same day and will be decided altogether. The Magistrate concerned is directed to decide the same avoiding unnecessary adjournments. 11. Interim order stands vacated accordingly. 12. All the pending applications, in either of the above-mentioned petitions, also stand disposed of as such. 13. Inform the Court below accordingly.