Uttarakhand High Court
Roshan Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr on 13 November, 2024
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
C528 No.787 of 2024
Roshan Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Anr. ...Respondents
Present:-
Ms. Prabha Naithani, counsel for the petitioner/accused.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Addl. A.G. with Mrs. Mamta Joshi, Learned Brief Holder
for the State.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma
This C-528 petition is filed by the petitioner/accused
for quashing the N.B.W. dated 08.10.2024 issued by the court of
learned Additional Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate,
Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, the charge sheet no. 1
dated 12.10.2020, the cognizance order dated 10.03.2021 passed
by learned Civil Judge (SD)/Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar as well as the
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.337 of 2017 'State vs.
Roshan Singh' in connection with F.I.R. No. 0206 of 2020 dated
29.08.2020 under Sections 323, 326, 504 & 506 of IPC, P.S.
Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. Counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that
no case under Section 326 of IPC is made out against the
petitioner/accused as there is only a small incise wound on the
thumb of left hand of the injured; that, the NBW is pending
against the petitioner/accused as he was given protection in
WPCRL No. 1402 of 2020 in respect of the F.I.R. herein from the
Hon'ble High Court.
3. Learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the
petition on the ground that the supplementary medical report
specifically states at the bottom that injury no. 2 is grievous in
nature, therefore, the case for the offence punishable under
Section 326 of IPC is prima facie made out.
4. Counsel for the petitioner/accused would contest the
submission made by the State Counsel and prays for some
interim relief in the shape of staying the proceedings of the trial
court.
5. The facts and circumstances of the case are not
special of the kind that it would warrant the need for staying the
proceedings of the trial court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
"Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others, 2021 SCC online SC 315", has observed that the criminal
proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage and that
quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than
an ordinary rule. For convenience, relevant paragraph of this
judgment is quoted hereunder:-
"33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final
conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be
justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no
coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition
under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in
passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be
adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed
under Section 173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not
quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under
Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our
final conclusions are as under:
33.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to
investigate into a cognizable offence.
33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences.
33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is
disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on.
33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, as it has been observed, in the "rarest of rare cases" (not to
be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the
court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an
ordinary rule.
33.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in
two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the
other sphere.
33.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not
overlapping.
33.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in
miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere
at the stage of investigation of offences.
33.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice.
33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must
disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when
the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the
merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on
hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it
amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating
officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary
before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.
33.13. The power under Section 482CrPC is very wide, but conferment of
wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and
more diligent duty on the court.
33.14. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to
the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more
particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P.
Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866]
and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 :
1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused
and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to
consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a
cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits
whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence
and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the
allegations in the FIR.
33.16. The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid
aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an
interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section
482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an
interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing
petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not
require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when
the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire
evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should
restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive
steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for
anticipatory bail under Section 438CrPC before the competent court. The
High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to
arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the
investigation is completed and/or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed
under Section 173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition
under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
33.17. Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that
an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further
investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the
powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why
such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it
can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum
can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an
interim order.
33.18. Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no
coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High
Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as
the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or
broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied."
6. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to
grant interim relief to the petitioner/accused. Accordingly, Stay
Application (IA No. 01 of 2024) is rejected.
7. However, the petitioner/accused is at liberty to move
an application for bail before the trial court concerned and if such
application is filed, the same shall be decided by the trial court
concerned, as per law.
8. As prayed, six weeks time is granted to the State to
file counter affidavit.
9. Petitioner/accused is directed to join the trial and
appear before the concerned Trial Court on 12.12.2024 at 10.30
am. Information to this effect will be given to the
petitioner/accused by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. No notice is needed to be served to the
petitioner/accused by the Trial Court for appearance on
12.12.2024.
11. List this matter on 11.02.2025.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court
concerned for information, compliance and to proceed as per law.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
13.11.2024
Akash
