Mukesh Sharma vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—By way of this criminal application, moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure ., the applicant has challenged the summoning order passed against him by the Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on 19.1.2007, whereby the cognizance was taken under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 427 IPC in a criminal complaint case No. 1781 of 2006, R.K. Verma v. Mukesh Sharma and two unknown persons.

Respondent No. 2- R.K. Verma filed the above criminal complaint on 7.2.2006 against the applicant and two other unknown persons for the above offences and got his statement recorded u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure of the same complainant, who himself is a witness of this case and no other independent witness and after recording the same, took cognizance as above and issued summons.

The petition was filed against the order of cognizance wherein the further proceedings were stayed.

Respondent No. 2 has been personally served but none turns up even after the revised call, so this Court has given a patient hearing to the case of applicant and after going through the paper book of the case, it appears that a civil suit No. 313 of 2005 was filed by Petitioner Mukesh against the Respondent No. 2-R.K. Verma on dated 20.12.2005. Besides there was another incident between the two on dated 9.1.2006, which has been stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit of the applicant. Applicant states that Respondent No. 2 every time exerts the pressure upon the applicant to withdraw the civil suit No. 313 of 2005 (Supra). When the applicant declined to accept his illegal demand, then the Respondent No. 2 beaten him. The applicant got himself medically examined in the Government Hospital, Haridwar on 10.1.2006 and also made the report to the Incharge Kotwali Haridwar on 10.1.2006 along with the medical certificate.

It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that the Kotwali Jwalapur did not lodge the first information report, so taking all these circumstances into consideration which gives the clear cut reflection of animosity, which is being nurtured all the times in the mind of the Respondent No. 2 and led into the result of filing this false complaint against him and peculiarly, the learned Magistrate did not feel any need to examine any independent witness u/s 200 and 202 Code of Criminal Procedure In both the provisions, only the ex parte on oath statement of Respondent No. 2 was taken as sufficient and the summons were issued after taking the cognizance. So, it is a clear-cut abuse of the process of the court aimed to harass the Petitioner at the hands of Respondent No. 2.

The Court is convinced with the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the applicant. The petition deserves to be allowed. It is allowed accordingly. The proceedings of the criminal complaint case No. 1781 of 2006, R.K. Verma v. Mukesh and Ors., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar or any other Magistrate Court in District Haridwar are quashed.