Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 21 (UTT)

Kuldeep Singh @ Jaja v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-01-11

RAJIV SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioners have sought quashing the charge-sheet no.207 of 2013 dated 10.09.2013 and the summoning order dated 24.05.2014, issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, District Nainital. 2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that one Mr. Sohan Singh has established a stone crusher near the village of the petitioners. The road leading to stone crusher passed in front of the houses of the petitioners. Lot of dust is generated by the moving trucks. It was agreed that water would be sprinkled on the roads to reduce the menace of dust. The plying of trucks was also objected by the petitioners. 3. According to the material placed on record, the respondent no.2-Sohan Singh and his family members came on the spot and started firing and gave beatings to the women. Many persons were injured and were admitted in the hospital. 4. One of the petitioners Charan Singh lodged the First Information Report bearing FIR No.109 of 2013 on 01.05.2013 against the respondent no.2 and his sons, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 323 of I.P.C. and 3(1)X, 3(2)4 SC/ST Act. The matter was investigated and they were summoned. Respondent no.2 also filed an FIR against the accused bearing no.114 of 2013 on 07.05.2013. 5. According to the averments made in the FIR, the petitioners have fired on them and the vehicle was also damaged. Stones were pelted. The petitioners have used firearms and sharp edged weapons. 6. However, the fact of the matter is that the police during the course of the investigation has neither recovered any firearm nor any sharp edged weapon from the possession of the petitioners. 7. The FIR bearing no.109 of 2013 was lodged by one of the petitioners on 01.05.2013 promptly against the respondent no.2 and his family members. 8. In case the incident had happened in the manner as narrated in the FIR No.114 of 2013, the same should have been lodged promptly. The FIR No.114 of 2013 has been lodged as a counter blast to the FIR No.109 of 2013 dated 01.05.2013. 9. It has come on record that the huts of the petitioners were also put to fire. Few petitioners have also received gunshot wounds. 10. Learned Trial Court has summoned the accused vide order dated 24.05.2014, in a mechanical manner. He should have applied his judicial mind. 9. It has come on record that the huts of the petitioners were also put to fire. Few petitioners have also received gunshot wounds. 10. Learned Trial Court has summoned the accused vide order dated 24.05.2014, in a mechanical manner. He should have applied his judicial mind. He has also misconstrued the orders passed by this Court on 09.05.2014 in Criminal Misc. Application No.133 of 2014 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. Learned Single Judge of this Court has only held that a supplementary charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter and after further investigation, learned Trial Court was given liberty to proceed with the trial as per law, after issuing fresh summons to the accused-persons. 12. The Trial Court should have applied his independent mind without being influenced with the order dated 09.05.2014 passed by this Court. 13. The FIR has been registered by the respondent no.2 belatedly on 07.05.2013. The continuation of criminal proceedings against the accused in FIR No.114 of 2013 would amount to gross misuse of process of Court. 14. In this case, the allegations contained even the charge-sheet do not disclose the prima facie case against the petitioners. 15. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2012 (13) SCC 614, in the case of “Satish Mehra vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another”, have held that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised carefully and sparingly. Their Lordships have held as under:- “14. The power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that in case the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the criminal complaint, as may be prima facie do not disclose a triable offence there can be reason as to why the accused should be made to suffer the agony of a legal proceeding that more often than not gets protracted. A prosecution which is bound to become lame or a sham ought to interdicted in the Interest of justice as continuance thereof will amount to an abuse of the process of the law. This is the core basis on which the power to interfere with a pending criminal proceeding has been recognised to be inherent in every High Court. A prosecution which is bound to become lame or a sham ought to interdicted in the Interest of justice as continuance thereof will amount to an abuse of the process of the law. This is the core basis on which the power to interfere with a pending criminal proceeding has been recognised to be inherent in every High Court. The power, though available, being extraordinary in nature has to be exercised sparingly and only if the attending facts and circumstances satisfies the narrow test indicated above, namely, that even accepting all the allegations levelled by the prosecution, no offence is disclosed. However, if so warranted, such power would be available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge against the accused. In fact the power to quash a proceeding after framing of charge would appear to be somewhat wider as, at that stage, the materials revealed by the investigation carried out usually comes on record and such materials can be looked into, not for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the accused but for the purpose of drawing satisfaction that such materials, even if accepted in its entirety, do not, in any manner, disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the accused.” 16. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2013(3) SCC 330 , in the case of “Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor”, have held that following steps should be followed by the High Court to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing of proceedings raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Their Lordships have held as under:- “(30.1) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? (30.2) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (30.3) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (30.4) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? (30.5) If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 17. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the summoning order dated 24.05.2014 is quashed and set-aside.