Uttarakhand High Court
Hitendra Bhatnagar Alias Mintu & ... vs Unknown on 9 September, 2022
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
C-482 No.1577 of 202
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the
applicants.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, AGA for the State of
Uttarakhand.
The present applicants have put a challenge
to the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 which was
passed in Criminal Revision No.159 of 2021,
Hitendra Bhatnagar alias Mintu & Ors. Vs. State &
Another, which has been rendered by the revisional
court, as against the principal summoning order of
04.09.2021, wherein the present applicants have
been summoned by the court for being tried for the
offences under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C.
As a consequence of the summoning order,
the present C-482 application has been preferred by
the applicants, on the ground that the summoning
order of 04.09.2021, will itself be an abuse of
process, because it would rather be forcing upon the
parties to litigate upon the trial proceedings, which
has been registered as Criminal Case No.1339 of
2021 Deepak Kumar Mehra vs. Hitendra
Bhatnagar alias Mintu and Others.
To substantiate his arguments learned
counsel for the applicants has submitted that the
proceedings stood instituted by filing of an
application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by way
of Misc. Case No.28 of 2021 Deepak Kumar Vs.
Hitendra Bhatnagar alias Mintu and Others, that
itself is malicious, owing to the fact, that when
earlier the complaint was submitted with regards to
the same set of allegations by the applicants to the
application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., only
one person was named therein against whom the
allegation was levelled to and for the said purposes
in order to substantiate his argument, he has relied
upon an undated report, which is being annexed as
(Annexure 3) to the C-482 application, in which the
Sub Inspector has submitted a report about the
alleged set of allegations against Mr. Hitendra
Bhatnagar only. He submits that if principal
complaint was instituted as against one accused
person in that eventuality the subsequent
application filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.,
which was instituted on 16.07.2021, it ought not to
have been against the other two co-accused persons,
who have been named therein, and that too for the
same set of allegations.
Tentatively, this Court is of the view, that if
in an earlier complaint, the complainant has
referred to the name of only one person, that will
exclusively in itself not preclude the applicants, nor
does the law create a bar, nor any such law has been
placed before the Court creating any bar as such
that the subsequent application under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C., cannot be instituted by
introducing other names of co-accused persons for
the same set of allegations, on which the
cognizance have been taken.
In the absence of there being any bar which
has been created by law the addition of name in an
application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. at a
later stage, will in itself be not an abuse of process
to bring the proceedings of the trial court as a
subject for scrutinization by the High Courts in
exercise of its plenary powers under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. and that too particularly, when in the light
of the fact the cognizance which has been taken by
the court by the summoning order is summoning
the applicants only for the offences under Section
504 and 506 I.P.C. which are bailable and they
would stand covered by the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court as rendered in Satendra Kumar Antil
vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another
as reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773.
Hence, on scrutiny of the summoning order,
which is based on a logical foundation and dispels
application of mind by the court of Judicial
Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar,
it does not suffer from any apparent error to call for
the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., because there is no immediate
apprehension or threat which is to be faced by the
present applicants on their participation in the
proceeding before the court concerned, as their
interest are already stand protected by the
guidelines of Hon'ble Apex Court.
Hence I declined to interfere in this 482
application. The same is accordingly dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
09.09.2022
Arti
