Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1743/2017 on 18 May, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C482 No.1743 of 2017
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
None for the applicant.
Mr. Amit Bhatt, Deputy A.G., for the State of
Uttarakhand.
A FIR No. 13 of 2016, was registered for the
offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the
IPC on 14th January, 2016, thereby naming four
accused persons to be involved in the commission
of offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of
the IPC. The applicant Suresh Chand Sood is not
named in the FIR. His name, for the first time, was
reflected at the stage of submission of the
chargesheet, being Chargesheet No. 81 of 2017
dated 8th April, 2017, due to which, he was
summoned by the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar, to face the
trial of Criminal Case No. 498 of 2017, State Vs.
Ramesh Chandra Sood.
In the chargesheet, which was submitted,
there were two persons, who were found to be
involved in the commission of offence under
Section 420, 406 and 120-B of the IPC. One of the
accused persons was Mr. Rajesh Datta. Mr. Rajesh
Datta has preferred C-482 Application No. 1485 of
2014, wherein, he has put a challenge to the
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 498 of 2017, for
the alleged involvement in the commission of the
offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the
IPC, as well as he has also put a challenge to the
cognizance and summoning order, which happen to
be common in both the cases.
The C482 Application, thus preferred by
Rajesh Datta, has been allowed by the Coordinate
Bench by the judgement dated 18th November,
2019. The relevant part is extracted hereunder :-
"10. In these circumstances, the present
application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to
be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the
cognizance order dated 18.07.2017 as well as entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 498 of 2017, State
vs. Suresh Chand Sood & Another, u/s 420, 406, and
120-B IPC, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Laksar,
District Haridwar, are hereby quashed against the
present applicant only."
After having gone through the records and
particularly after going through the FIR in order to
cull out as to whether any specific role has been
assigned to the applicant Suresh Chand Sood, in the
commission of the offence, as registered by way of
FIR No. 13 of 2016, apart from the fact that, his
name is not shown in the FIR, even no role has
been assigned to him in commission of offence as
per the allegation levelled in the FIR also. Even if
the chargesheet is taken into consideration, the
reflection of name of applicant Suresh Chand Sood
is merely because of the fact, that the Investigating
Officer has observed that on the basis of the
evidence, which was considered, and particularly to
the statement recorded of the witnesses by the
Investigating Officer, it is observed that the
statement of the employees recorded with Birla
Tyre, Laksar, the name of the present applicant
Suresh Chand Sood, was shown to be reflected in
the commission of the offence. Though no specific
role has been assigned even in the chargesheet
assigned to the present applicant except for the fact,
that his name was stated to have been involved in
the commission of the offence.
Since there is no direct nexus of the present
applicant in the involvement of the commission of
the offence, as it has been complained of in
Criminal Case No. 498 of 2017, and his case would
stand at a common pedestal to that of Mr. Rajesh
Datta, the present C482 Application would stand
allowed, and the proceedings of Criminal Case
No. 498 of 2017, State Vs. Suresh Chand Sood,
would hereby stand quashed, qua the present
applicant too in the light of observations made in
the judgment of 18th November, 2019.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 18.05.2023
Shiv
