Uttarakhand High Court
Hon'Ble Sharad Kumar Sharma vs State And on 16 August, 2023
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings or
SL.
Date directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
16.08.2023 C482 No. 1593 of 2023
With
C482 No. 1349 of 2023
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate, for
the applicant(s).
Mr. V.K. Gemini, Deputy Advocate
General, for the State.
C482 Application No. 1593 of
2023, Tushar Gupta Vs. State and
Another, had been preferred by the
present applicant as a consequence of the
institution of the Criminal Case No. 3420
of 2023, State Vs. Tushar Gupta & Others,
wherein they had been summoned to be
tried for the offences under Sections 323,
504 and 506 of IPC.
In the earlier instituted C482
Application No. 1349 of 2023, Km. Vanika
Gupta Vs. State and Another, it was yet
again the same proceedings, which has
been put to challenge by the applicant
therein namely Km. Vanika Gupta,
questioning the propriety of the
proceedings which were emanating from
the same FIR, being FIR No. 611 of 2022,
for the offences under Sections 323, 504
and 506 of IPC. In this C482 Application,
this Court, on 12.07.2023 had passed an
order, granting the interim protection to
Km. Vanika Gupta on the ground that
there are multiple FIRs which have been
registered against one another for
different offences. But, primarily a
consideration for the grant of interim
order, was based upon an institution of
the Civil Suit No. 650 of 2022, Smt. Kusum
Gupta Vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta and others,
by the grandmother of the present
applicant as against the defendants
therein, in which there already operated a
temporary injunction as granted by the
learned trial Court on 21.12.2021.
So far as the effect of institution
of the Civil Suit by the grandmother of the
present applicant and the grant of
injunction is concerned, that would only
have a binding effect between the parties
to the Suit. The applicants Tushar Gupta
or Vanika Gupta, against whom the
criminal proceedings have been drawn for
the offences under Sections 323, 504 and
506 of IPC they are not the party to the
proceedings of the said Suit, and as such
any orders which are rendered in it, it will
only have a binding effect between the
parties and not the present applicants,
hence, pendency of the Suit instituted by
the grandmother of the present applicant
doesn't gave a escape to the present
applicant, to question the propriety of the
FIR and the criminal proceedings
respectively under consideration of C482
Application, merely by projecting that
since the Suit is pending, the dispute
takes the shape of a civil dispute, which
has to be ventured into by this Court in
the exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 482 CrPC and this was the logic
which was assigned by this Court by
passing an interim order dated
12.07.2023, where the applicant
succeeded to convince the Court, that it
was a civil litigation where the parties are
already under dispute.
Today, when the C482
Application No. 1593 of 2023 was taken
up and on a comparative scrutiny of the
records of C482 Application No. 1394 of
2023, what is revealed is that if the plaint
itself of Suit No. 650 of 2022, Smt. Kusum
Gupta Vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta and others
are taken into consideration, the
applicants of either of the C482
Application are not a party to it, hence,
the pendency of the aforesaid Suit will
have no bearing so far as the criminal
allegations as it has been levelled against
the present applicants, as it was
emanating from the FIR and subsequently
because of the Chargesheet which has
been submitted by the Investigating
Officer, wherein the specific assignment
of role has been given to present
applicants of the two C482 Applications,
of engaging them in their commission of
offence under Sections 323, 504 and 506
of IPC.
The pendency of the Suit cannot
be a ground to not to interfere in 323, 504
and 506 of IPC proceedings and that too,
in relation to those persons who are not
the party to the Suit and who have been
roped up in the offence, solely based
upon the investigation report as
submitted by the Investigating Officer,
where they have been specifically
assigned with the role for the commission
of offence under Sections 323, 504 and
506 of IPC.
Hence, these C482 Applications
are declined to be ventured on merit by
this Court, in the exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 of CrPC.
The applicants are relegated to
resort to their appropriate remedies as
available to them, in the light of the
judgment of Satender Kumar Antil Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and
Another, as reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51
as it was observed in the earlier order
passed on 12.07.2023 by this Court in
C482 Application No. 1349 of 2023. Since
all the offences carry a sentence of less
than seven years and pendency of a civil
litigation will have no bearing so far as the
present applicants are concerned, they
are directed to surrender before Court
concerned within a period of two weeks
and resort to their appropriate remedy as
prescribed in para 3(e) of the said
judgment in relation to the 'A' category of
offences, for which they have been
summoned by the learned trial Court in
Criminal Case No. 3420 of 2023, State Vs.
Tushar Gupta.
Subject to the aforesaid, the C482
Application would stand closed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
16.08.2023
Mahinder/
