Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 263 (UTT)

MANOJ BISHT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-04-25

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek, the following reliefs, among others: “(a) To quash the impugned order dated 01.03.2017 and order dated 19.04.2017, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd, Nainital, District Nainital in Criminal Case No. 313 of 2017, Mohd. Irfan vs. Jehjan Akhtar and other, under section 323, 392, 504 IPC, failing which the deponent herein will face irreparable hard and injury. (b) To stay the arrest of the petitioner till the pendency of the present petition/application. (c) To stay further proceedings of case in furtherance of criminal case no. 313 of 2017, Mohd. Irfan vs. Jehjan Akhtar and other, under section 323,392, 504 IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd, Nainital, District Nainital.” 2. The accused-applicants have been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 392 and 504 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants drew attention of this Court towards the report of C.O., Haldwani to SSP, Nainital to show that petitioner no.1 is posted as Regional Business Head and his office is at Dehradun. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that on 27.03.2016, applicant no. 1 was not present at Haldwani. He never came to Haldwani in presence of Irfan (Annexure-5). 4. Hon’ble Apex Court as given certain guidelines in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, reported in (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 986 : 2013 (1) NCC 1 and Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330 in respect of disposal of such cases. 5. Although inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid in the Section itself, but the instant case appears to be one such case in which this Court should intervene to quash the order impugned. 6. A Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision of Inder Mohan Gosami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, reported in (2008) 1 SCC (Cri.) 259, has laid down the guidelines for exercising the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein it was held that inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised: i. to give effect to an order under the Code; ii. to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and iii. to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 7. In the circumstances, the Court is inclined to grant relief to applicant no. 1. Proceedings against the applicant no.1 in pursuance of orders dated 01.03.2017 and 19.04.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd, Nainital in Criminal Case No. 313 of 2017, Mohd. Irfan vs. Fehjan Akhtar and others are set aside. 8. So far as applicant no. 2 is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant confined his prayer only to the extent that some time may be given to the applicant no.2 to surrender before the Court concerned and, thereafter, court below be directed to decide his bail application at an early date and in the meantime, no coercive measures be taken against him. 9. It is provided that if the applicant no. 2 surrenders before the court concerned within four weeks and seeks bail, his bail application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and without unreasonable delay. No coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner/ applicant no. 2 for a period of four weeks from today. 10. This Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to the private respondent. Still, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this Order, if he feels aggrieved with the same.