Uttarakhand High Court
Gauri Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 11 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 686 of 2022
Gauri Devi ...Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents
Present:-
Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, AGA with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief
Holder for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the order
dated 10.08.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 86 of
2020, Gauri Devi v. Kanchan Gupta and others, by the court
of 5th Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Dehradun
("the case"). By this order, the final report filed by the
Investigating Officer ("IO") in FIR No. 226 of 2019 under
Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("the Act"), P.S. Premnagar, District
Dehradun has been accepted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. The case is based on an FIR lodged on 12.12.2019
by the revisionist under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC
and Section 3(1)(x) of Act at P.S. Premnagar, District
Dehradun. According to it, on 04.06.2017 at 11:15 in the
morning, 15-20 women entered in the house of the informant
and abused and attacked her. The husband of the revisionist
was on duty. The revisionist was all alone in the house. She
was abused with the caste coloured remarks also. It is this
FIR, in which after investigation, a final report was
submitted, which has been accepted by the impugned order.
It is impugned herein.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the revisionist was mercilessly beaten by various
persons, including the private respondents. She sustained
multiple injuries on her hands. She lodged a report, which
was immediately not recorded by the police. Subsequently, an
inquiry committee ("the Committee") was constituted to look
into the matter comprising of Shekhar Chand, C.O. Police,
Vijay Singh and Asha Pancham, Sub Inspectors, chaired by
Prakash Chand, Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Dehradun.
The Committee concluded that the incident should be
investigated as per law and an FIR should be lodged. It is
argued that it is only thereafter that the FIR was lodged.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist would also
submit that, in fact, the IO had earlier also given a closure
report in a matter pertaining to the revisionist. In the instant
matter, the investigation is not fair. The witnesses of the
incident have not been examined by the IO. Particularly, it is
argued that Nafees and Manish Kumar both were never
interrogated by the IO. They have given their affidavits; their
false statements have been recorded. The medical
examination report of the revisionist was not taken into
consideration. Therefore, the impugned order accepting the
final report is bad in the eyes of law. The final report deserves
to be rejected and further investigation may be ordered.
6. In fact, after receipt of the final report, the case
was instituted and a notice was issued to the revisionist. She
filed objections raising multiple issues with regard to the way
the investigation was conducted. The revisionist by way of
objections requested that further investigation may be
ordered.
7. Once final report is received, the court may - (i)
accept it and close the proceedings; or (ii) may direct further
investigation; or (iii) may take cognizance on it irrespective of
the conclusion arrived at by the IO.
8. It is also settled law that once final report is
received, the informant/victim is informed about it of
affording him an opportunity of hearing. This is what has
been done in the instant case. Once the objections/protest
petition is filed by the informant/victim, the above options
are open to the court with regard to the final record.
9. There is another option that may also be exercised
once final report is accepted. After considering the protest
petition, such protest petition, which has attributes of a
complaint, may be registered as a complaint.
10. In the instant case, the revisionist had filed a
protest petition requiring for further investigation alone.
Reference has been made to an inquiry report. The Court
does not intend to peruse it because in order to decide a final
report, the material collected during investigation has only to
be considered. No extraneous material may guide the court to
decide on a final report. This inquiry report is annexure 16. It
has multiple versions. A reading of it reflects that there was
some commotions in the vicinity. There was some altercation
between two groups. This report makes reference to the
statement of one Sub Inspector Praveen Saini. His statements
are also recorded in it. In fact, according to this report, when
this altercation between two groups took place, the police had
intervened and the police officer was Sub Inspector Praveen
Saini. He did not see any injury marks on the revisionist, but,
as stated, it is not part of investigation.
11. The impugned order is quite in detail. It is not
cursory. In para 9 of the impugned order, the court has noted
that the revisionist, her husband, her son and one Ved Gupta
and Adesh Gupta supported the version of the FIR. The court
further discussed the statements of the witnesses in para 9 of
the impugned order. In paragraphs 7 and 8, the court has
categorically dealt with the statements of 27 witnesses
recorded by the IO. All of them told it to the IO that the
parties had property dispute. The court below observed
"Further, these persons also informed the Investigating
Officer that one construction work of a drainage was
going on in the colony. The said work was got stopped by
the husband of the complainant Shri Rajkumar. Accused
persons and some other women of the colony had only
gone to the residence of the complainant to request Shri
Rajkumar that the construction work should not be
stopped in the public interest. The investigation
conducted by the Investigating Officer also reveals that
few of the aforesaid persons, whose statements were
taken during the investigation, belong to the same
community to which the complainant also belongs to,
and they also did not support the FIR in their
statements".
12. During the course of argument, it is submitted by
the learned counsel for the revisionist that, in fact, the Indian
Military Academy ("IMA"), where the husband of the
revisionist was working, had directed Rajkumar, husband of
the revisionist, to lodge a report with regard to some drainage
work, which was being carried out adjoining the IMA
boundary. Such direction, according to the learned counsel,
was given to the husband of the revisionist on 03.06.2017.
13. The Court wanted to know as to whether the
husband of the revisionist filed any complaint as directed to
him by the IMA? The answer is in negative.
14. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further
referred to a communication dated 08.06.2017 made by the
IMA officer to police station informing that some incident has
taken place in the house of Rajkumar and to take necessary
action on it.
15. Fact remains that immediately FIR was not lodged.
An inquiry was conducted, which has been referred to during
the course of argument. The Court has not looked into it in
order to appreciate the final report. It may also be pertinent
to note that, in fact, the court below has also not considered
that inquiry report observing that it is not part of the
investigation.
16. Be it as it may, the Court has also glanced at the
inquiry report, where Sub Inspector Praveen Saini has stated
that there was a commotion in the locality on that day and he
did not see any injury on the person of the revisionist.
17. The IO has, in fact, investigated the matter;
unearthed the truth and did not find any case against the
named accused. The court below has, quite in detail,
extensively examined the final report and did not find any
error in it. The final report has been accepted. The impugned
order, for any reason, is not wrong, illegal or improper. It is
based on material. No interference is warranted. Accordingly,
the revision deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage
itself.
18. The criminal revision is dismissed in limine.
19. At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist
would submit that the revisionist may be given a liberty to file
a complaint. The revisionist is always free to take action as is
permissible under law.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
11.11.2022
Avneet/
