Uttarakhand High Court
Radhe Mishra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 17 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.1159 of 2019
Radhe Mishra ..... Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ....Respondents
Mr. Nandan Arya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. R.S. Negi, learned counsel for the private respondent.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
This application is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. seeking to quash and set aside the charge sheet
dated 13.06.2019 as well as summoning order dated
01.07.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/J.M.,
Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal, in Criminal Case
No.334 of 2019, (Case Crime No.06 of 2019), "State Vs.
Ishwar Shukla and another".
2. The brief facts of the case are that, an FIR was
lodged on 05.01.2019 with P.S. Muni-Ki-Reti, District
Tehri Garhwal by the informant-Sakti Tyagi against the
present applicant and co-accused with the allegation that
on 04.01.2019 Ishwar Shukla along with present
applicant came at Café House and demanded money from
the informant regarding publication of news items.
3. The respondent (informant) has appeared
before this Court and submitted that the compromise has
taken place between the parties; in fact the said FIR was
lodged on the misconception of facts against the
applicant; it is also submitted that no such demand was
raised by the present applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that
as per the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
the present applicant called the informant on
04.01.2019, at that time the co-accused was also
present.
5. From the perusal of the record, there is no
evidence that the present applicant was editor; there is
no evidence on record that, he raised a demand of
ransom from the informant and there is no call detail.
6. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal &
others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, have
considered, in detail, the provisions of Section 482
Cr.P.C., and the power of the High Court to quash
criminal proceedings or FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
summarized the legal position by laying the following
guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of
their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: -
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.
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.
7. Considering the facts of the present case, in
light of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the view that no
'prima facie' case is made out against the applicant under
Sections 384, 385, 388 and 120-B IPC.
8. Accordingly, the instant misc. application is
allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case
No.334 of 2019, (Case Crime No.06 of 2019) State Vs.
Ishwar Shukla and another, are hereby set aside qua the
present applicant.
9. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
17.08.2021
BS
