Uttarakhand High Court
Mradul Tripathi Alias Monu And ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 9 November, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.1534 of 2021
Mradul Tripathi alias Monu and another
........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another
........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. R.C. Tamta, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ranjan Ghildiyal, A.G.A. with Mr. Sachin Panwar, Brief
Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") has
been preferred for quashing the charge-sheet dated
13.04.2017 as well as summoning order dated
29.07.2017, passed in Criminal Case No.2721 of 2017,
State vs. Mradul Tripathi and others, under Sections 147,
353 and 332 IPC by the court of Judicial Magistrate,
Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, "the
case").
2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy
briefly stated are as follows. An FIR was lodged by the
respondent no.2, Virendra Ramola, Senior Sub-Inspector
Police (for short, "the informant") on 19.07.2017 under
Sections 147, 353, 332 IPC against the petitioners and
others. According to the FIR, on that day, the informant
had gone to assist the Encroachment Removal Drive. At
04:00 PM, on that day, when encroachment done by one
Khempal was being removed, the petitioners obstructed
the police personnel from discharging their official duties.
In the scuffle, which ensued the informant and others
were also assaulted, due to which, the informant also
sustained nail scratches. The informant got himself
medically examined. This FIR was investigated and after
investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the
petitioners. It is this charge-sheet, in which, on
29.07.2017, cognizance has been taken. These
proceedings are impugned in this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that petitioner no.1 was an Ex-Gram Pradhan and
an activist. He was called at the spot by the public. He
only represented the public and did not commit any
offence. Therefore, it is submitted that no case is made
out against the petitioners.
5. This is a petition under Section 482 of the
Code. The jurisdiction is too wide to make such orders as
may be such order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of
the process of any court or otherwise to seek an ample
justice. The jurisdiction has been much guided by the
principles laid down in various judgments by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The legal position has been summarized
in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd.
and others, (2006)6 SCC 736. In para 12 of it, the Hon'ble
Court observed as hereunder:-
"12. The principles relating to exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash complaints and criminal
proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this
Court in several decisions. To mention a few--
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri)
234] , State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , Rupan Deol
Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995
SCC (Cri) 1059] , Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5
SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045] , State of
Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996
SCC (Cri) 628] , Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of
Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401] , Medchl
Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [(2000)
3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615] , Hridaya Ranjan
Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 786] , M. Krishnan v. Vijay
Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19]
and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd.
Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri)
283] . The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the
allegations made in 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
the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be
examined as a whole, but without examining the merits
of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a
meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment
of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the
complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for
quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a
clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the
criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated
with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to
cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and
inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be
used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The
power should be used sparingly and with abundant
caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim
reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If
the necessary factual foundation is laid in the
complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients
have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should
not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is
warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even
the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for
making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a
civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil
wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial
transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from
furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil
law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature
and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a
criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint
relates to a commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has
been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the
criminal proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence
or not."
6. What is being argued in the instant case is that
the petitioners did not commit any offence. The FIR
categorically states that the police personnel were
obstructed in discharge of their duties by the petitioners
and others. There are allegations of assault, as well. It is
the case in the FIR that the informant did sustain
injuries. After investigation, charge-sheet has been
submitted and it is based on the statements of the
witnesses and the medical report, etc. The truthfulness,
credibility and reliability of the evidence cannot be
examined at this stage. A mini trial cannot be conducted.
It is settled law that at the threshold a legitimate trial
should not be stopped. In the instant case, the FIR
disclosed the commission of the offence and after
investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a case
which may warrant any interference and the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
7. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
09.11.2021
Sanjay
