Sonu @ Anees And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1592 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                    NAINITAL

          Criminal Misc. Application No. 757 of 2017

Sonu @ Anees and others                                      .....Applicants
                                      Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another                              ..Respondents

Present:
Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rawal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1.

                                      With

          Criminal Misc. Application No. 265 of 2017

Sukram Pal and others                                        .....Applicants
                                      Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another                              ..Respondents

Present:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the
applicants.
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rawal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1.
Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate assisted by Ms. Tajaswina Sagar and Ms. Kavita Sagar,
Advocates for the respondent no. 2.


Hon'ble Pankaj Purovehit, J.

The present C-482 applications have been filed by the applicants challenging the charge-sheet dated 02.12.2015, which was filed pursuant to First Information Report dated 06.02.2015, summoning order dated 22.01.2016 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 46 of 2016 (Case Crime No. 70 of 2015), for the offences punishable under Sections 141, 283, 341, 332 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Manglour District Haridwar.

2. The First Information Report was lodged by SHO- Shri Jasveer Singh Pundir, In-charge Kotwali Manglour, District

Haridwar on 06.02.2015 at about 21:40 hrs, on the basis of whih, Case Crime No. 70 of 2015, under Sections 141/283/341/332 of IPC and Section 7(i)(x) of Criminal Law Amendment Act was registered.

3. The averments made in the First Information Report disclose that on 06.12.2015, SHO-Shri Jasveer Singh Pundir along with police party, was on Gasht(round) in vehicle No. UK08GA0157 in around Narson Kasba. At about 09:30 AM, SSI Naveen Chandra Semwal informed the SHO that a dispute was going on in respect of a land, near Manglour and the National Highway was jammed in order to get forcible possession of land- in-dispute to one Sukram Pal and Chaman Lal. At this information, the informant SHO alongwith SI Raghuveer Singh Chaudary, SI Pratap Singh Chauhan, SI Ramkumar Juyal with force and SHO Kotwali Civil Line Roorkee Shri V.D. Uniyal, SHO Kotwali Gangnahar Shri Dinesh Singh Bhandari also reached at the spot with the force.

4. Sukram Pal and Chaman Lal with the help of 100 to 150 unknown people made an unlawful assembly and had jammed the National Highway by parking vehicles cris-crossed. In this traffic jam, the ambulance carrying a patient was also got stuck causing a danger to the life of the patients and also to the passengers. Some of the passengers were going through train and aeroplane, also got stucked and this traffic jam caused financial, physical and mental harassment to them.

5. After investigation, a charge-sheet no. 402 of 2015 dated 02.12.2015 was submitted against 15 persons, including the applicants and cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Roorkee, Haridwar vide order dated 22.01.2016

against them under Sections 141/283/341/332 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, and the applicants were summoned to face the trial.

6. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid charge-sheet and summoning order, the present C-482 applications have been filed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

8. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the cognizance order and the summoning order have been passed in a cyclostyle manner and no finding was recorded by the Magistrate while taking cognizance against the applicants. It has also been submitted that the criminal law machinery cannot be set into motion as a matter of course, as it has a serious implication in the life of the applicants.

9. With the strength of this argument, it is contended that the instant criminal case is nothing, but, an abuse of process of law and if it is allowed to be continued, the same would amount a miscarriage of justice against the applicants.

10. Per contra, learned State Counsel has submitted that from the perusal of the First Information Report, a prima-facie case of offences under Sections 141/283/341/332 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, is made out and the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Roorkee, took the cognizance on the matter on the basis of the documents submitted in the police report/charge-sheet and thereafter, summoned the accused-

applicants. There is no illegality, as indicated by the counsel for the applicants in the cognizance and the summoning order.

11. This Court, with the help of the learned counsel for the parties, examined the cognizance order/summoning order dated 22.01.2016, the First Information Report and the charge- sheet.

12. The learned court below, on the basis of the charge- sheet, took the cognizance against the applicants and passed the summoning order against the applicants.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in 2019 (20) SCC 539 has held as under:

"........Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, where the Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police report and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate directs issuance of process. In case of taking cognizance of an offence based upon the police report, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons for issuing the process. In cases instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order of issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason......"

14. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharashtra & others; reported in (2019) 14 SCC 350 also, has held that the High Court ought not to have set-aside the order passed by the trial court issuing summons to the respondents where a perusal of the complaint discloses prima facie offence against the

respondents as the correctness and otherwise of the allegations raised by the rival parties can only be decided in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to stifle the proceedings entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the respondents-accused, who have been summoned. For ready reference, paragraph nos.4, 5 & 9 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under:-

"4. The only point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order by which process was issued. It is settled law that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with a view to taking cognizance of the offence, or in other words, to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to a conviction or not [Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta, (2015) 3 SCC 424 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 265] .

5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere [State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 539] .

9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the trial court issuing summons to the respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses prima facie, offences that are alleged against the respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground

that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."

15. This Court, following the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court qua the subject controversy, is also of the view that there is no illegality committed by the court below while taking cognizance and summoning the accused applicants on the basis of the charge-sheet and papers accompanying it. It discloses prima facie case against the applicants to face the trial. Moreover, the rival contentions regarding the disputed question of facts cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The disputed question of facts can only be examined by the learned trial court at the time of trial on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.

16. In view of this observations made hereinabove, this Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. does not find any occasion to interfere in the impugned summoning/cognizance order and/or the criminal proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 46 of 2016 (Case Crime No. 70 of 2015), under Sections 141, 283, 341, 332 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Manglour District Haridwar, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

17. Accordingly, both the C482 applications are hereby dismissed.

18. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated accordingly.

19. However, the applicants are given liberty to surrender before the learned trial court in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another as reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and seek bail in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Apex Court therein.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.06.2023 PN