Uttarakhand High Court
Kumar Dhingra vs Sachidanand Swami on 11 September, 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. 1647 of 2023
With
C482 No. 1963 of 2019
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate, for the applicant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, Brief Holder, for the State
of Uttarakhand.
These are two C-482 Applications. In C-482
Application No. 1647 of 2023, it emanates from
Criminal Complaint Case No. 28 of 2022, Mahesh
Kumar Dhingra Vs. Sachidanand Swami, being the
proceedings, which have been drawn against the
present applicant for trying him for the offences
under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 452 of the IPC.
These proceedings are pending consideration before
the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.
In the connected C-482 Application No. 1963
of 2019, it arises out of the Complaint Case No. 873
of 2019, Mahesh Kumar Vs. Sachidanand Swamy,
which yet again happens to be a complaint case, in
which, the summoning order has been issued on 1st
July, 2019, where the applicant has been summoned
for the offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of
the IPC.
In these two C-482 Applications, the
respondents had put in appearance as back as on
16th October, 2019, but they are yet to file their
counter affidavit.
Be that as it may. Looking to the wider
directives and basic guiding factor provided in the
judgment of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another, as reported
in (2022) 10 SCC 51, the underlying principle laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, was that in all
these cases, where the offences complained of, they
carry a sentence of less than seven years,
unnecessarily C-482 Applications are not required
to be ventured into, calling out of an appreciation of
evidence at the stage of C-482 Application, which
would be exclusively a subject matter of trial open
to be argued by the parties, which would be based
upon the evidence to be adduced by them. With
that intention of the judgment of Satender Kumar
Antil (Supra), since all these offences as
complained of herein, and as argued by the learned
counsel for the applicant in the context of the
documents filed before this Court, it entails an
appreciation of statement recorded under Sections
200 and 201 of the Cr.P.C., as well as the impact of
the medical report, which has been submitted by the
Medical Officer. Appreciation of these documents
and evidence are not the scope for exercise of
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., because
there may be a version and a counter version to the
documents, which are relied by the applicant or the
parties, which would be falling within the domain
of consideration for the Trial Court before whom
the cases are pending consideration.
In that eventuality, and particularly the
guiding line which has been issued by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the matter of Satender Kumar
Antil (Supra), the spirit behind it was, that the lis
has to be expedited in its adjudication, should not
be kept lingering because of the interference being
made by the Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
on an issue which requires appreciation of
evidence, or which are trifle in nature.
Thus, the C-482 Applications would stand
disposed of with the liberty left open for the
applicant to surrender before the Court and seek his
bail in the light of the guidelines framed in para 3
(e) of the said judgment, which governs the
principle pertaining to the offences, which carry a
sentence of less than seven years, and if he does so
within a period of two weeks from today, the
learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, will
consider his application in the light of the
guidelines framed in para 3 (e) of the said
judgment.
Subject to the aforesaid, the C-482
Applications, would stand disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 11.09.2023
Shiv
