Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 400 (UTT)

Narendra Kumar Verma v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-07-15

R.C.KHULBE

body2019
JUDGMENT : R.C. KHULBE, J. 1. The applicant-Narendra Kumar Verma has filed the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Cr.P.C') seeking to quash the proceedings emanating from the Criminal Revision No. 252 of 2014, Jagdish Prasad vs. State & Others, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun. 2. The facts to the limited extent necessary are that respondent-2 Jagdish Prasad filed a complaint bearing Case No. 670 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate Dehradun on 08.08.2013, in which the statement of complainant Jagdish Prasad was recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the statement of witness Suresh Chaudhari was recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. 3. After hearing the complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate found that no criminal case is made out against the applicant and accordingly the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. on 07.07.2014. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent no.2- Jagdish Prasad filed the Criminal Revision No. 252 of 2014, Jagdish Prasad vs. State and another, before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun. The learned Sessions Judge admitted the said Revision on 31.07.2014 and transferred it to the Additional Sessions Judge. Assailing the order dated 31.07.2014 and the entire proceedings pending before the Revisional Court, the present application has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that respondent no. 2- Jagdish Prasad filed a false complaint case against the present applicant under Section 3 (1)(ix) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, no case is made out against the present applicant as well as the respondent nos. 3 to 5, since it was simply a service matter; having recorded a finding to this effect, the Second Judicial Magistrate Dehradun dismissed the complaint Case No. 670 of 2013; there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Magistrate concerned; the Sessions Judge did not apply its mind before admitting the revision and the matter is languishing before the Additional Sessions judge since 2014, which is abuse of process of law. 6. 6. In support of his case, he has placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court: - A. Raghu Raj Singh Rousha v. Shivam Sundaram Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & another, 2009 2 SCC 363 B. Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & another, 2012 9 SCC 460 ; C. Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan & another, 2016 16 SCC 30; 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that the prima facie evidence is available on record against the applicant as well as the respondent nos. 3 to 5. The revision was properly filed and after applying its mind, the concerned Sessions Judge admitted the revision. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record. 9. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that a complaint case was filed by the respondent no.2 Jagdish Prasad against the applicant- Narendra Kumar Verma and respondent nos. 3 to 5, namely, James Peters, K.S. Jamestin and Taquir Hussain, under Section 3(1)(ix) of the SC & ST Act before the Judicial Magistrate Second Dehradun, which was registered as Case No. 670 of 2013, Jagdish Prasad vs. James Peters and others. 10. Since the year 2014 when the revision was admitted, the same is pending before the Revisional Court. Ultimately, Narendra Kumar Verma filed this petition invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 31.07.2014 as well as entire proceedings of criminal Revision No. 252 of 2014 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun. 11. From the perusal of the order sheet regarding the criminal revision no. 252 of 2014, Jagdish Prasad vs. State and another, as many as 34 adjournments were granted by the Revisional Court unnecessarily, wherefor, no justification was given for granting the adjournments. 12. Inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. though wide but have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution; and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself, it is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. 13. Inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. though wide but have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution; and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself, it is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. 13. From a perusal of the order dated 31.07.2014, it is clear that when the Revision was filed against the order dated 07.07.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Second, Dehradun, whereby the complaint filed by the revisionist was dismissed, learned Sessions Judge heard the revisionist and after hearing him, the said revision was registered and notices were issued to the present applicant. The revisionist was directed to take steps within seven days. Simply on the basis of this registration order, the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Narendra Kumar Verma. 14. From the perusal of the order sheet dated 31.07.2014, it is clear that only the revision was registered. No final order was passed against the present applicant. Simply notices were issued to the present applicant. Mere registration of a revision does not mean that the court below made up its mind to summon the accused in any offence. But from the perusal of the record, it is clear that the Revisional Court did not hear the revision for the last four years and it is pending without any cause. 15. Since the revision is pending against the dismissal of the complaint, hence at this stage, it would not be proper for this Court to assess the evidence produced by the complainant before the Magistrate. Whether the Magistrate has passed the order according to law or not, certainly it can be looked by the Revisional Court itself. 16. In these circumstances, a direction is issued to the Sessions Judge, Dehradun to summon the file from the court of Additional Sessions Judge and to decide the revision, on his own, on the merits of the case, as early as possible, but not later than 15 days from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon him. 17. The petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of finally. 18. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment, today itself, by fax/e-mail to the Sessions Judge, Dehradun for forthwith compliance.