Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 4968 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 17 October, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
      Criminal Misc. Application No.1862 of 2025
                        (U/s 528 Cr.P.C.)

Amjad
                                                         --Applicant
                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another
                                                     --Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Rangoli Purohit, learned B.H. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

In this C528 application, the challenge is to the entire criminal proceedings of SST No.149 of 2025 'State v. Amjad' pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/FTSC (POCSO) Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar.

2. The facts in brief are that an FIR WAS lodged by respondent no. 2 alleging therein that on the alleged date of incident applicant who works in a nearby furniture shop came in his absence in his house and sexually assaulted his daughter; on the basis of above information an FIR bearing no 0093 of 2025 was lodged under Sections 331, 351 (2) and 64 of BNS and 3 (A)/4 POCSO was lodged against the applicant. Hence, this application.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that that applicant was working in a shop nearby the house of the respondent no. 2 on feeling thirsty the applicant used to take water from the tap situated in the house of the respondent no. 2 due to which the applicant was in the talking terms with the respondent no. 2 as well as his daughter. On the date of the alleged incident, the applicant in a routine manner went to the house of the respondent

and asked water from the daughter of the respondent no. 2 and after drinking the water the applicant immediately returned to his workplace.

4. He further submits that the respondent no. 2, having wrong impression against the applicant, with the intention to falsely implicate the applicant in the matter on the basis of a false and concocted story, on 13.03.2025 lodged an FIR bearing No. 0093 of 2025 in P.S. Kotwali Roorkee District Haridwar under sections 333, 351 (2) & 64 of BNS and 3(a) /4 POCSO. That the applicant is innocent and law abiding citizen and has no concern with the allegations as levelled against him in the First Information report and has been falsely implicated in the present matter.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the course of the investigation statements of the daughter of the respondent no. 2 were recorded under section 183 of B.N.S.S whereby the daughter of the respondent no. 2 herself had specifically stated that the applicant only came for drinking the water and even did not enter the house of the respondent no. 2 and went back just after drinking water which is suffice to prove that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. That it is relevant to point out here that the daughter of the respondent no.2 in the statement given before the Medical Officer, Sub District Hospital, Roorkee (Haridwar) had specifically stated that one unknown person had forcefully enter the house of the respondent and thereafter established physical relations with the daughter of the respondent no. 2, which is suffice to prove that the applicant has no concern with the allegations levelled against him.

6. He further submits that in spite of the statement

of respondent no 2's daughter, the Investigating Officer, in a very casual manner and without considering the material on record and without considering the statement of the daughter of the respondent no. 2, submitted the chargesheet under sections 333, 351 (2) & 64 of BNS and 3(a) /4 POCSO in FIR No. 0093 of 2025 in furtherance of which the Additional District & Session Judge/ POCSO, Haridwar, without considering the case at hand and on the basis of chargesheet, took cognizance against applicant and thereafter the summons were issued against the applicant.

7. He further submits that the learned Trial court without considering the statements given by the daughter of the victim under section 183 of B.N.S.S in an erroneous and illegal manner passed the summoning order and the cognizance order against the applicant.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance in the present matter after due application of judicial mind. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer, after conducting a proper investigation and recording the statements of relevant witnesses, submitted a charge-sheet finding sufficient material against the applicant. Upon perusal of the material available on record, including the FIR, witness statements, and the investigation report, the Magistrate found prima facie grounds to proceed against the applicant under relevant sections. It is therefore contended that the impugned order taking cognizance and summoning the applicant is well-reasoned and does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the FIR, charge-sheet and entire material available on record. Since, the offences lodged against the applicant are very serious in nature and prima-

facie made out a case against the applicant, it is essential for the ends of justice that the applicant should be subjected to a proper trial. In a catena of judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that High Court should be slow in interfering with the criminal proceedings, if prima-facie the case is made out against the applicant. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531, in its Para 12 has held as follows:-

"12. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute."

10. Recently, in the case of Neeharika, Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that criminal case shall not be scuttled at the initial stage. Relevant sub- paras of Para 33 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:-

"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;

33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 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;

11. After keeping the above principle in mind, this Court is of the opinion that as prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and the charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicant was summoned after cognizance, this Court cannot enter into merits of the case at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only be proved during trial, after both the parties would adduce their respective evidences.

12. Accordingly, the C528 application is dismissed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.10.2025 AK