Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 455 (UTT)

SUCHIT NARANG v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2018-09-24

MANOJ K.TIWARI, RAJIV SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Per: Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, A.C.J. Petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No.0102 dated 18.08.2018, registered against him at P.S. Rajpur, District Dehradun under Section 9/10 of POCSO Act and Section 354-A IPC. 2. “Key facts", necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner is 100% blind. According to the contents of FIR, petitioner has sexually abused the students. 3. This Court has taken cognizance of the news items published in daily edition of “Hindustan Times" as well as “Times of India". The students of National Institute for the Visually Handicapped were protesting against the teachers and staff involved in molestation and sexual abuse of the inmates. 4. An interim order was passed by this Court on 29.08.2018 including registration of FIR against the petitioner for inappropriately touching and openly flirting with the visually impaired children. 5. It is in these circumstances, the FIR has been registered against the petitioner. 6. This petition was listed before learned Single Judge. He referred it to the Division Bench. It is in these circumstances, we are hearing this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the statement of the witnesses have already been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the case of victimization. 9. There is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. The provisions of Disabilities Act, as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, are not attracted. 10. According to the averments made in the FIR, the petitioner has sexually abused the students. This is a serious offence, that too, in the institution where ‘special category children' are imparted education. The averments, made therein, disclose the constitution of cognizable offence(s). 11. In (2013) 3 SCC 330 , in the case of “Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor", their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have laid down the following principles while exercising the powers of quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Their Lordships have held as under:- “30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 30.1. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC: 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, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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." 12. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.