3 June vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 487 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

3 June vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 3 June, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2025:UHC:4445
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 2133 of 2022
                          03 June, 2025
Ishrat Ali                                              --Applicant
                              Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another                     --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
      Mr. M.K. Ray and Mr. Naman Kamboj, learned
      counsel for the applicant.
      Mr. Shailendra Singh Chuahan, learned D.A.G. with
      Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State
      of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
      Despite sufficient service, neither the respondent
      No.2 nor her counsel, is present before this Court.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 18.06.2016, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.478 of 2015 Smt. Khairulnisha Vs. Taufeek Aalam and the subsequent judgment and order dated 06.10.2022 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No.197 of 2019 Ishrat Ali and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, along with the judgment and order dated 06.10.2022, passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No.201 of 2019 Khairulnisha Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others.

2025:UHC:4445

3. The facts in brief are that an FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 on 03.08.2014 against the applicant and four other persons for the offences punishable under Sections 376(g), 323, 34 IPC, alleging therein that on 03.08.2014, when she was travelling to Rudrapur, she coincidently met with her ex-husband, who offered to drop her to Pantnagar, when she boarded his car, he along with his friends subjected her to rape and beating.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR is lodged on wholly false and concocted facts. He further submits that the applicant is ex- husband of respondent No.2; their divorce has attained finality; the FIR was lodged because of vengeance. He also submits that after due investigation and relying on other scientific evidences viz. DNA Test, the Investigating Officer was duly submitted the closure report.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that in spite of the final report based upon non- incriminating evidence, the learned trial court below has committed grave irregularity in taking cognizance and summoning the applicant under Sections 323, 354, 354(B) read with 34 IPC. He further contends that both respondent No.2 and applicant has challenged the order passed by the learned trial court in the learned Revisional Court and learned Revisional Court also has committed grave irregularity in dismissing the revision filed by the applicant and allowing the revision filed by the

2025:UHC:4445 respondent No.2 and directing the learned trial court to reconsider the matter. He also contends that all the impugned judgments and orders are bad in law as they are passed by completely overlooking the scientific evidence and closure report filed by the Investigating Officer after meticulous investigation.

6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submitted that the lower courts have committed no irregularity in taking cognizance in spite of the closure report filed by the Investigating Officer, as it is settled principle of law that Courts aren't bound by closure report/charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that non-presence of semen in the private parts of the respondent No.2, non-matching of DNA of the accused persons with the clothes of victim/respondent No.2, swabs raise great suspicion in the prosecution story. Moreover, non- presence of independent witnesses in broad day light that too on a busy road; CDR records showing applicant to be far away from the place of alleged incident, at the time when the incident is alleged to be happened and lodging of FIR after the decree of divorce, further weakens the story of prosecution.

8. The offshoot of the above discussion is that the Court thinks that this is a fit case to use its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as not doing so, will amount to abuse of process of law.

2025:UHC:4445 Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 06.10.2022 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No.197 of 2019 Ishrat Ali and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, as well as the judgment and order dated 06.10.2022, passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No.201 of 2019 Khairulnisha Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, are hereby set aside. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 18.06.2016, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.478 of 2015 Smt. Khairulnisha Vs. Taufeek Aalam, also stands quashed.

9. In view of the above, the present C482 application is allowed.

10. Interim order dated 29.11.2022 stands vacated.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.06.2025 PN PREETI

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe383 31bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,

NEGI postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE 064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.06.04 16:49:04 +05'30'