Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 228 (UTT)

Deependra Singh Bisht v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-04-02

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is made to the charge-sheet dated 20.01.2019 arising out of the FIR No.287 of 2018, under Sections 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nehru Colony, District Dehradun. Challenge is also made to the summoning order dated 12.03.2019, passed in Criminal Case No.1565 of 2019, passed by the court of 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun (for short, “the case”). By which, the petitioner has been summoned to answer the accusation under Sections 504, 506 IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy briefly stated are as follows: The case is based on an FIR lodged by the respondent no.2, Manendra Singh Bisht (“the informant”). According to it, on 21.10.2018 at about 01:00 in the afternoon, the petitioner was raising some constructions, but he was throwing the garbage in the premises of the informant. When the informant objected to it, according to the FIR the applicant abused the informant and threatened him to life. Based on the FIR, a case was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner, in which, on 12.03.2019 cognizance has been taken, which is impugned herein. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, as such. Witness Sarojani Bisht did not see the incident, although according to her, she has called the informant and others at site. It is also argued that a civil suit filed by the petitioner has been decreed, against which the appeals preferred by the informant has been dismissed. It is also argued that at the relevant time when the FIR was lodged, the execution proceeding was pending at the revisional stage. 5. Learned State counsel would submit that the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. 6. Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code. The jurisdiction, which is much wide, but also guided by the principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases. The jurisdiction is exercised to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order passed by the court or to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 7. The jurisdiction is exercised to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order passed by the court or to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 7. In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has illustrated the list of the circumstances under which the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code may be exercised. In paragraph 102 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. What is being argued is that no prima facie case is made out and parties were in civil litigations. 9. Merely because the parties were in civil litigations does not absolve a person of his criminal liability. This Court at this stage may not conduct a mini trial. According to the FIR, when the informant objected to the activities of the petitioner, he was abused and threatened to life. In his statement given to the Investigating Officer informant has corroborated the case narrated in the FIR. Two witnesses D.P. Singh and Ajay Uniyal has also supported the statement of the injured. Prima facie offence is made out. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 10. The petition is dismissed in limine.