Uttarakhand High Court
Hemant Dwivedi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 79 of 2020
Hemant Dwivedi .....Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pankaj
Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mrs. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.
None appears for respondent no. 3.
Dated: 18th August, 2021
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J. (Oral)
The present criminal misc. application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicant seeking the following reliefs:
(i) Quash the charge-sheet No. 15 of 2018 dated
22.12.2018 pursuant to FIR No. 06 of 2018 for
the offences cognizable under Section 420, 447,
504 & 506 IPC.
(ii) Quash the cognizance order dated 19.02.2019
passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nainital in Criminal Case No. 361 of 2019, "State
v. Hemant Dwivedi" pursuant to FIR No. 06 of
2018 for the offences cognizable under Section
420, 447, 504 & 506 IPC, as well as the entire
proceeding of the said criminal case.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent
no. 3 lodged an FIR against the accused applicant on
04.03.2018, alleging offence under Sections 420,
447, 504 & 506 IPC against the accused applicant.
Accused applicant challenged the said FIR by filing
Criminal Writ Petition No. 448 of 2018.
3. Since during the pendency of the said writ
petition charge-sheet was submitted against the
petitioner, this Court dismissed the said writ petition
as infructuous vide order dated 07.01.2019. The
main ground of challenge raised in the said writ
petition was that it was an actually land dispute and
the complainant has wrongly initiated the criminal
proceedings against the accused applicant.
4. After dismissal of the said writ petition, the
accused applicant approached the Hon'ble Apex
Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order
dated 08.02.2019 directed that no coercive steps
shall be taken against the accused applicant.
However, since the trial court was regularly issuing
summons to the accused applicant, the present C482
application was filed challenging the charge-sheet
filed against the accused applicant. Meanwhile, vide
order dated 06.12.2019, the Hon'ble Apex Court
directed the Collector Nainital to issue necessary
instructions to the SDM to carry out the demarcation
in the presence of both the parties and sought the
report of demarcation along with the covering report
of the Collector. Accordingly, the demarcation was
done and report was submitted and thereafter, the
Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 03.11.2020
disposed of the appeal of the accused applicant by
observing that "we find that the dispute really is one
of a civil nature relating to the land in question and
the criminal process is being used to settle that
dispute. The demarcation report leaves little in doubt
about the ground situation and thus, we are of the
view that there is no requirement for the criminal
process to go on. Learned counsel for the
respondents states that they seriously dispute the
report of the SDM, and naturally so, as it does not
now favour them. We have not precluded them from
challenging the report in accordance with law".
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court passed the
following directions while disposed of the appeal of
the accused applicant:
"In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is
disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The criminal process initiated in
pursuance to FIR No. 6 of 2018 dated
04.03.2018 registered at PS Bhimtal
stands quashed.
(ii) The report of the SDM is taken on
record and if any of the parties is
aggrieved by the SDM report, the same
may be assailed in accordance with law.
(iii) The possession at present will be
maintained by the parties in accordance
with the report of the SDM subject to
any adjudication which may take place
as aforesaid.
The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving
parties to bear their own costs."
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant further prayed that the present petition
be decided in the light of the judgment and order
dated 03.11.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1108 of
2019.
7. Learned State Counsel fairly
concedes that the present criminal misc.
application may be decided as per the judgment
and order dated 03.11.2020 passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that despite
sufficient service on respondent no. 3 and filing of
Vakalatnama on his behalf by Mr. Bhupendra
Prasad and Mr. Sanpreet Singh Azmani, none
appeared today on behalf of the respondent no. 3.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and particularly the
judgment and order of the Honb'le Apex Court
dated 03.11.2020, it is crystal clear that the
dispute was purely of land dispute for which
criminal proceedings were lodged. The Hon'ble
Apex Court observed that the criminal process is
used to settle that dispute. The demarcation report
leaves little in doubt about the ground situation
and thus, we are of the view that there is no
requirement for the criminal process to go on and
quashed the criminal process initiated in
pursuance to the FIR lodged against the applicant
with liberty to the private respondent to assail the
report of the SDM.
10. In view of the above, the impugned
criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to be
continued as the Hon'ble Apex Court has quashed
the criminal process pursuant to the FIR lodged by
the private respondent no. 3 and the impugned
proceedings are passed pursuant to the charge-
sheet filed against the accused applicant after
investigation in the said FIR. Consequently, this
C482 application is allowed. The charge-sheet
dated 22.12.2018 and the cognizance order dated
19.02.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nainital in Criminal Case No. 361 of
2019, "State v. Hemant Dwivedi" is hereby
quashed.
11. Inform the Court concerned
accordingly.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.)
18.08.2021
AK
