Reena Rani And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

Petitioners seek quashing of chargesheet and summoning order dated 23.11.2017 in Special Sessions Trial No. 76 of 2017, State Vs. Arvind Pandey and Others, pending in the Court of Special Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, which arises out from FIR No.152 of 2015, Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record.

The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that the informant was working as Naib Tehsildar, at the relevant time. On 25.08.2015, when the informant was going to Tehsil Headquarter, on the way, co-accused Arvind Pandey, the then Member of Legislative Assembly, intercepted his car, asked him to get down from the car. The co-accused, thereafter, told the informant that he wrongly decided the case pertaining to Hem Raj and saying it, he slapped the informant. Thereafter, the informant was assaulted by other persons, who were with the co-accused. His documents, mobile phone, etc. were also taken away. There are other details, as well, in the FIR.

It is this FIR, in which, after investigation chargesheet was submitted against the petitioners and others, which is basis of the case. In the chargesheet, on 23.11.2017, cognizance was taken and the petitioners and co-accused were summoned under Section 147, 149, 395, 332, 333, 353, 325, 412, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(ii) (v) of The Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'). It is this order and chargesheet, which is impugned herein.

On behalf of the petitioners, it is argued that petitioners are not named in the FIR; they are not the persons, who allegedly attacked the informant; there are allegations against the co-accused, who are facing trial and who were also arrested during investigation. Learned counsel would argue that the petitioner has no role. There are serious allegations levelled against them without any reason.

On behalf of the State, it is argued that the factual aspects cannot be considered in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'). The victim, in his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code has supported the prosecution case and named categorically the petitioners also; it is a case of common object and assaulting a public servant on duty, who sustained grievous injuries.

It is a petition under Section 482 of the Code. The jurisdiction is invoked to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to give effect to any order under the Code or otherwise and/or to secure the ends of justice. The jurisdiction is too wide, but, also guided with settled principles by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments.

In the case of Indian Oil Coprn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while interpreting the scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, held as hereunder;

"12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few - Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) (1) SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234, State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045, State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla (1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi 1999 (3) SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19 and Zandu Phamaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283 . The principles, relevant to our purpose are:-

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.

For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not."

FIR in the instant case is categorical. There are averments that the informant was waylaid and assaulted by the co-accused. Victim has been examined under Section 164 of the Code. In his statement given under Section 164 of the Code, the informant has given details as to what happened with him. The genesis, according to the FIR, is a case which was decided by the informant, in his capacity as a public servant. He was slapped and assaulted because it was alleged that he did not decide the case pertaining to co-accused Hem Raj correctly. The informant named the petitioners as the persons who surrounded him and told that the informant did not decide the case in their favour. What is their role? Were they bystander or they had assembled there with some common object to attack, assault and beat the informant? These are the matters which have once been decided by the Investigating Officer. He has found the petitioners complicit in the offence and submitted chargesheet. The veracity and credibility of the statement of the informant is further subject to scrutiny at the trial, therefore, this Court is of the view that in this petition, no interference is warranted and it deserves to be dismissed.

This is a chargesheet which was submitted long back in the year 2017 and there are allegations against the then Member of the Legislative Assembly. While dismissing this petition, this Court also requests the learned Court below as hereunder;

(i) To conclude the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible;

(ii) If possible, to conduct the trial on day to day basis, as and when the trial resumes without any adjournment to any of the parties.

(iii) The Investigating Officer may be required to remain personally present in Court alongwith witnesses on all the days when witnesses are examined;

(iv) To consider to ensure personal presence of the accused without exemption. The exemption to personal appearance may only be granted under exceptional circumstances for a particular day(s).

With the above observations, the petition stands dismissed.