Uttarakhand High Court
Rekha vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 21 July, 2025
2025:UHC:6377
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C482/1729/2017
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Vinod Joshi proxy counsel for Ms.
Neetu Joshi, learned counsel the applicant.
2. Mr. B.N. Maulakhi, learned Deputy A.G.
along with Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A.
for the State.
3. Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, learned
counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 & 6.
4. This C-482 application has been
preferred by the applicant to quash the
impugned order dated 18.05.2016 passed in
Criminal Case No. 944 of 2016 by learned
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Roorkee, District
Haridwar as well as the impugned judgment
and order dated 09.10.2017 passed by learned
District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar in
Criminal Revision No. 324 of 2017 'Smt.
Rekha Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others.
5. Brief fact, as per the record, are that an
FIR was lodged by the applicant against
respondent nos. 2 to 6 under Sections 147, 148,
452, 323, 506, 376 and 511 IPC, alleging
therein that the respondent nos. 2 to 6 had
trespassed into the house of the applicant and
attempted to commit rape and upon resistance,
the applicant was assaulted by the said
respondents. After completion of investigation,
the Investigating Officer exonerated the
respondents from the charges under Sections
376 and 511 IPC, and filed a charge-sheet
under Sections 147, 148, 325, 323, and 506
IPC; that, the learned Judicial Magistrate took
cognizance on the said charge-sheet vide order
dated 18.05.2016. Feeling aggrieved, the
applicant/complainant filed a revision petition,
2025:UHC:6377
which was dismissed by the learned District
and Sessions Judge, Haridwar on 09.10.2017.
Hence, this application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that the Investigating Officer filed the
charge-sheet in an arbitrary manner without
conducting proper investigation, and wrongly
exonerated the accused from the charges under
Sections 376 and 511 IPC. He would further
submit that the trial court took cognizance
without duly considering the material available
on record, including the statement of the victim
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also
contended that the revisional court dismissed
the revision petition in a cursory manner,
without proper judicial scrutiny.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant would
further submit that the trial court wrongly
relied on the statements recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C., which are police statements and
not admissible as evidence; that, the trial court
ignored the statement of the victim under
Section 164 Cr.P.C.; that, both the courts below
acted in a mechanical manner, without properly
applying their mind to the facts of the case.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel would
oppose the application and would submit that
the charge-sheet was filed by the concerned
Investigating Officer after due investigation,
and the trial court took cognizance after
examining the materials on record; that, the
present application raises disputed questions of
fact and evidentiary issues, which cannot be
adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and must
be examined during the course of trial.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents would submit that the respondents
have falsely been implicated, and the
Investigating Officer has, after thorough
inquiry, rightly exonerated them from the
charges under Sections 376 & 511 I.P.C.
2025:UHC:6377
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
11. It is a well-established principle of law
that the inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and with
great caution, only to prevent abuse of the
process of law or to secure the ends of justice.
The said powers cannot be invoked to re-
evaluate or re-appreciate the evidence as a
Court of Appeal or Revision. In the present
case, the contentions raised by the applicant
essentially involve factual disputes and
evaluation of evidence, which are to be
adjudicated during the course of trial and such
matters cannot be examined by this Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
12. In view of the above, this Court is of the
view that this is not a fit case where the power
u/s 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised.
13. Accordingly, the C-482 application is
dismissed.
14. However, it is clarified that the trial court
shall decide the case in accordance with law
and on its own merits, without being
influenced by any observation made in this
order.
15. No order as to costs.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
21.07.2025
Mamta
2025:UHC:6377
