Uttarakhand High Court
Deependra Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 2 April, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 573 of 2020
Deependra Singh Bisht ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1.
Mr. Harshit Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Siddhartha Sah,
Advocate for respondent no.2.
JUDGMENT
Per : Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is made to
the charge-sheet dated 20.01.2019 arising out of the FIR
No.287 of 2018, under Sections 504, 506 IPC, Police
Station Nehru Colony, District Dehradun. Challenge is
also made to the summoning order dated 12.03.2019,
passed in Criminal Case No.1565 of 2019, passed by the
court of 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dehradun (for short, "the case"). By which, the petitioner
has been summoned to answer the accusation under
Sections 504, 506 IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The facts necessary to appreciate the
controversy briefly stated are as follows: The case is based
on an FIR lodged by the respondent no.2, Manendra
Singh Bisht ("the informant"). According to it, on
21.10.2018 at about 01:00 in the afternoon, the petitioner
was raising some constructions, but he was throwing the
garbage in the premises of the informant. When the
informant objected to it, according to the FIR the
applicant abused the informant and threatened him to
life. Based on the FIR, a case was lodged and after
investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the
petitioner, in which, on 12.03.2019 cognizance has been
taken, which is impugned herein.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that no prima facie case is made out
against the petitioner, as such. Witness Sarojani Bisht
did not see the incident, although according to her, she
has called the informant and others at site. It is also
argued that a civil suit filed by the petitioner has been
decreed, against which the appeals preferred by the
informant has been dismissed. It is also argued that at
the relevant time when the FIR was lodged, the execution
proceeding was pending at the revisional stage.
5. Learned State counsel would submit that the
witnesses have supported the prosecution case.
6. Instant petition has been filed under Section
482 of the Code. The jurisdiction, which is much wide,
but also guided by the principles of law as laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in umpteen number of cases.
The jurisdiction is exercised to make such orders as may
be necessary to give effect to any order passed by the
court or to prevent abuse of process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
7. In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs.
Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has illustrated the list of the
circumstances under which the jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code may be exercised. In paragraph 102 of
the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
hereunder:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this
Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of
the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of
a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."
8. What is being argued is that no prima facie
case is made out and parties were in civil litigations.
9. Merely because the parties were in civil
litigations does not absolve a person of his criminal
liability. This Court at this stage may not conduct a mini
trial. According to the FIR, when the informant objected
to the activities of the petitioner, he was abused and
threatened to life. In his statement given to the
Investigating Officer informant has corroborated the case
narrated in the FIR. Two witnesses D.P. Singh and Ajay
Uniyal has also supported the statement of the injured.
Prima facie offence is made out. Therefore, this Court does
not see any reason to make interference. Accordingly, the
petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of
admission itself.
10. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
02.04.2024
Sanjay
