Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 398 (UTT)

Anil Melkani v. Munne

2019-07-12

N.S.DHANIK

body2019
JUDGMENT : N.S. Dhanik, J. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 CrPC, is preferred to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 188 of 2014, Munna v. Deepak & Others, under Sections 323, 504, 392 IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital. 2. Facts, in brief, are that the complainant/respondent no. 2 moved a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC against the applicants before the Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani and the learned Magistrate directed that the said complaint be registered as criminal complaint case. After recording the statements of the complainant and the witnesses under Section 200 and 202 CrPC, learned Court below vide order dated 5.2.2014 summoned the accused applicants to face trial for the aforementioned offences. 3. Indisputably, complainant was an accused in an FIR No. 62/2011 for the offence under Section 5/11 of Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, wherein he was chargesheeted and thereafter Criminal Case No. 2452 of 2011 proceeded against the complainant in the Court of ACJM, Haldwani. This Court, vide its order dated 1.12.2011, while holding that the provisions of Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act were not attracted in the case of the complainant, quashed the entire proceedings of the said criminal case. 4. Learned Counsel for the accused applicants contended that present accused applicants were the eyewitnesses in the aforementioned case and they helped the police in arresting the complainant and the co-accused and as a counterblast to the aforementioned FIR/Criminal Case, the complainant has launched the present criminal proceedings against the applicants. Learned Counsel for the accused applicants further contended that the alleged incident took place on 26.7.2011 whereas the complaint could be lodged on 3.7.2012 and this delay of almost one year has not been explained. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the present proceedings are not counterblast to the aforementioned FIR lodged against the applicants. Rather, it was the present applicants who on 26.7.2011, voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant, intentionally assaulted and provoked the complainant and robbed of his money and bicycle and there is an eyewitness of this incident. Learned Counsel further argued that the complainant was granted valid license to take out the skin of dead animals and despite this, the FIR was lodged against him and he remained in jail for more than four months, which led to delay in moving the present complaint. 6. Learned Counsel further argued that the complainant was granted valid license to take out the skin of dead animals and despite this, the FIR was lodged against him and he remained in jail for more than four months, which led to delay in moving the present complaint. 6. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the allegations made in the complaint, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do prima facie make out a case against the accused applicants. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2013 9 SCC 293 , has observed that in order to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings raised by an accused under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court should analyze (i) whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable and indubitable; (ii) whether the material relied upon by the accused is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint; (iii) whether the material relied upon by the accused cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and (iv) whether the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court and hence, would not serve the ends of justice? 8. In my considered opinion, the answer to none these questions is in affirmative and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings by exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC. 9. Consequently, the present C482 petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Inform the Court concerned accordingly.