Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 191 (UTT)

AMIT CHAUHAN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-03-22

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash/set aside the impugned charge sheet dated 02.02.2016, summoning order dated 03.02.2016 and entire proceedings of criminal case no. 578 of 2016, State vs Bichan @ Ateek and others (FIR no. 333/2015) under Section 420, 411, 413, 414 I.P.C., police station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. An FIR was lodged against five named accused, including the applicant, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 411, 413, 414 IPC on 05.11.2015. After the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted report dated 21.11.2015, as follows: “Sir, I have meticulously gone through the recovery memo. There is no evidence against Amit Chauhan in respect of stolen canter except the statements of co-accused Bichan @ Ateek and Gagan. The stolen canter has not been recovered from his possession. Nothing has been revealed against Amit Chauhan during interrogation. It has not been revealed that another cabin which has been recovered from the house of Amit Chauhan was a stolen cabin or part of the vehicle, which was financed….. Detailed investigation will be conducted in respect of the cabin, which was recovered from the house of Amit Chauhan. Cabin of the stolen vehicle was already there on the said vehicle (from which Bichan @ Ateek and Gagan were arrested).” 3. It is, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the Investigating Officer himself, in his report, has pointed out that there is no involvement of present applicant in the alleged crime. According to the Investigating Officer, there is no evidence against the present applicant, although the Investigating Officer has finally submitted charge sheet against the present applicant. 4. Hon’ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986 : 2013 (1) NCC 1, has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. One of the principle is that the Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the court may interfere. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exists. 5. Foundation of criminal offence is, therefore, not laid against the present applicant, who has been implicated on mere surmises and conjectures. The applicant has been implicated in the instant case only on the basis of statements of co-accused Bichan @ Ateek and Gagan, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and present applicant has no connection with the co-accused. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 has observed in paragraph no. 28 of the said ruling as under: “28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.” 7. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself, but the instant case appears to be one such case, in which the inherent jurisdiction shall be exercised in the interest of justice. 8. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the criminal proceedings against the applicant should be quashed at the admission stage itself. 9. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed. Charge sheet dated 02.02.2016 and summoning order dated 03.02.2016, as also entire proceedings of criminal case no. 578 of 2016, State vs Bichan @ Ateek and others (FIR no. 333/2015) under Section 420, 411, 413, 414 I.P.C., police station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed qua present applicant only. [Misc. application no. 1373 of 2017 also stands disposed of.]