Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 253 (UTT)

Ram Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-03-29

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This is one of the fittest case, in which, the High Court should exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. The brief backdrop of the case is that respondent No. 2, complainant, happens to be the relative (Samdhi) of applicant No. 1. The proceedings, in question, which has been registered as Criminal Case No. 658 of 2012, State Vs. Ram Chandra and others, which is pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Laksar, District Haridwar is alleged to be for commission of the offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C., in which, the applicants have been summoned by the Court vide its order dated 04.12.2012, would amount to be an abuse of process of law. 3. As would reveal from the records as placed by the applicants before this Court, there have been some family disputes arising out of the matrimony of the daughter of the applicant No.1 and the son of respondent No2, who are show to have got married on 19February, 2007. Due so certain matrimonial disputes, the wife of the applicant No. 1 had earlier lodged an F.I.R. No. 147 dated 09.03.2008, as against the six persons, named therein, including the respondent No. 2, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and ¾ D.P. Act, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 660 of 2008, at Police Station Kotwali, District Muzzafarnagar, U.P.. In the said case, it is pleaded that charge-sheet has been submitted as against the respondents and the trial is pending. 4. As a counterblast to the above proceedings drawn by the applicants, which was initiated by the applicant No. 1, the respondent No. 2 is shown to have lodged an F.I.R. on 6May, 2008, at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, which was registered as Case Crime No. 123 of 2008, under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The Investigating Officer, after investigation, had submitted a final report on 23September, 2008, which was protested by the respondent No. 2, by filing a Protest Petition, before the Magistrate concerned. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to treat the Criminal Case as lodged on 6May, 2008, as to be a Complaint Case No. 161 of 2010, Lal Singh Vs. Ram Chandra Kalyani and others, and summoned the applicants. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to treat the Criminal Case as lodged on 6May, 2008, as to be a Complaint Case No. 161 of 2010, Lal Singh Vs. Ram Chandra Kalyani and others, and summoned the applicants. These proceedings of the complaint case was challenged by the applicant before this Court by filing C-482 Application No. 481 of 2010, Ram Chandra and others Vs. Lal Singh and this Court vide its order dated 2 nd June, 2010, had initially granted an interim order and stayed the proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 161 of 2010, Lal Singh Vs. Ram Chandra Kalyani and others. After the grant of the interim order on 2nd June, 2010 by this Court, the respondent No. 2 is shown to have filed yet another Criminal Complaint Case No. 624 of 2008 on 23rd August, 2008, under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate Laksar, District Haridwar. The said complaint case too on being questioned before this Court, an interim order was granted on 12th June, 2009, in C482 Application No. 678 of 2008, Ram Chandar and others Vs. Lal Singh. 5. From records, it reveals that the inter se grudge between the parties did not cease at this stage, rather the son of respondent No. 2 had lodged an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registering the case against the present applicants, it was numbered as Complaint Case No. 774 of 2008, Praveen Kumar Vs. Smt. Hemlata and others allegedly for offences under Sections 304, 323, 147, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Thane Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar, where a prayer was made to lodge F.I.R. against the daughter of the applicant No. 1 and other persons. As per the records, the said proceedings were rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee vide its order dated 24th June, 2008, and this rejection order stood confirmed on a challenge being given by Praveen Kumar son of respondent No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 304 of 2008, whereby, the revision was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge/3 F.T.C., Haridwar vide its order dated 14th August, 2008. This order of rejection of 156 (3) application by son of respondent No. 2 stands final. 6. This order of rejection of 156 (3) application by son of respondent No. 2 stands final. 6. The dispute between them did not cease even at this stage, rather the respondent No. 2 yet again had lodged an F.I.R. on 7th May, 2012, against the applicants which was registered as Case Crime No. 103/2012, under Section 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar. 7. On culmination of the investigation with regard to the aforesaid offences of Case Crime No. 103/2012, a final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 12th August, 2012 and the respondent No. 2 lodged a protest as against the final report dated 12th August, 2012, before the Court of A.C.J.M. Laksar, District Haridwar, who rejected the final report and took cognizance of the matter and summoned the applicants in pursuance to the impugned order dated 04.12.2012, which is under challenge before this Court. 8. Before addressing on the present C482 Application on its merit, the counsel for the applicants has informed this Court that the initial proceedings, which were stayed by this Court, i.e. Criminal Misc. Case No. 678 of 2008, Ram Chandar and others Vs. Lal Singh, was ultimately, allowed by this Court by the judgment dated 12th March, 2013, and a cost of Rs.5,000/-was imposed on the respondent No. 2. There have been specific findings, which have been recorded in the said judgment to the effect that the entire proceedings, which has been initiated time and again is nothing but a malicious prosecution for vengeance of the personal grievances and the dispute which has arisen out of the matrimonial dispute between the son of respondent No. 2 and daughter of applicant No. 1. Not even this, even the second Criminal Misc. Case No. 481 of 2010, in which, initially, there was an interim order granted by this Court, had also been allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 7th January, 2015. 9. Not even this, even the second Criminal Misc. Case No. 481 of 2010, in which, initially, there was an interim order granted by this Court, had also been allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 7th January, 2015. 9. The Court while parting with the judgment dated 7th January, 2015, had observed that the circumstances of the cumulative proceedings being lodged by respondent No. 2 as against the present applicants is nothing but an abuse of process of law and has also taken into consideration the impact of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (Crl) No. 5532 of 2013, which the respondent No. 2 has preferred against the judgment dated 12th March, 2013, as rendered in Criminal Misc. Case No. 678 of 2008, Ram Chandar and others Vs. Lal Singh and the SLP of respondent No. 2 had been dismissed by the judgment dated 31st January, 2014 by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and the totality of aspect and looking to the proximity of the successive complaint in successive short intervals, which has been filed by respondent No. 2, as a matter of fact, this Court is also of the view that it did not reflect the actual occurrence of the incident alleged, in view of the fact that prima facie at the initial stages too on the conclusion of the investigation, a final report was submitted on most of the occasions in favour of the present applicants and whenever the final report has been submitted, it had resulted into filing of the subsequent proceedings was drawn by respondent No. 2 with an intent of vengeance. 11. Hence, this Court is of the view that considering the reasons assigned by the two Coordinate Bench of this Court, in its judgment dated 12th March, 2013 and 7January, 2015, rendered in Criminal Misc. Case No. 678 of 2008, Ram Chandar and others Vs. Lal Singh and Criminal Misc. Application No. 481 of 2010, Ram Chandra and two others Vs. Lal Singh respectively, the present complaint, on which, the applicants had been summoned by the impugned order dated 04.12.2012, too, is the resultant effect of the failure of respondent No. 2 to succeed in the earlier set of proceedings against the present applicants for the same set of allegations. Application No. 481 of 2010, Ram Chandra and two others Vs. Lal Singh respectively, the present complaint, on which, the applicants had been summoned by the impugned order dated 04.12.2012, too, is the resultant effect of the failure of respondent No. 2 to succeed in the earlier set of proceedings against the present applicants for the same set of allegations. Hence, it would be an example of a deliberate and intentional attempt of malicious prosecution of the present applicants, which will amount to be flagrant abuse of the process of law courts. 12. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the present C-482 Application deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby accordingly allowed. As a consequence thereto, the Criminal Case No. 658 of 2012, State Vs. Ram Chandra and others, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar, alleging commission of the offence under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. too deserves to be quashed, considering the conduct of the respondent No. 2. 13. Thus, for the above reasons, the present C-482 Application is allowed. There would be no order as to costs.