Roopam Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

While summarizing the controversy, which the revisionist has questioned in the instant Criminal Revision No. 293 of 2016 'Smt. Roopam Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another' where he has put challenge to the judgment/order dated 06.08.2016, as rendered by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2016 'Vibhuti Shankar vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others'. The sole premise and rationale on which the revisional court's order is foundationed is that in an NCR Case No. 136 of 2012, the offence for which the allegation was leveled against the revisionist and which was being tried by the courts at Kasna District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. was specifically in relation to the offences, which are specifically mentioned therein in the NCR No. 136 of 2013, i.e. Section 498A, 520, 323, 504 & 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

In the contents of the complaint registered as NCR No.136 of 2012 though as it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that it was to the effect, that it contained a set of allegation with regards to the offence under Section 406, but as a matter of fact and also which is borne out from records is that the complaint itself was not registered under the said offence under Section 406 of IPC. Hence, what she intends to contend in support of the impugned order is that if the complaint of NCR No. 136 of 2012 if it merely contains a narration or a set of allegations in relation to the commission of offence under Section 406, that in itself would suffice to draw the inference, as it has been drawn by the impugned order to the effect that since on the culmination of the investigation when the chargesheet was submitted in the said NCR No. 136 of 2012, the chargesheet was submitted only with regards to the commission of an offence, under Sections 323 & 504 of IPC, which was alleged to have been proved, the revisional court in Revision No. 52 of 2016, has drawn an inference and assigned its reason that since cognizance has been taken by the Kasna Courts at Gautam Budh Nagar only for the offences under Sections 323 and 504 the logical inference, which would fall, is that in relation to the other offences, which was narrated in NCR No. 136 of 2012, which according to the respondents and revisional court it would be inclusive of the offence under Section 406 in view of the narration of facts made in the complaint, the same could not have been tried afresh by the courts at Kashipur, when it was turned down by the Investigating Officer at the time of submission of chargesheet in NCR No. 136 of 2012 as cognizance was taken only for offences under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC.

This contention as raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that mere an assertion in the complaint, i.e. in the NCR No. 136 of 2012, with regards to the set of allegations pertaining to bringing the allegation within the purview of Section 406, that itself would suffice the purpose, this Court is not in agreement with this argument for the reason being that once the Investigating Officer conducts an investigation in pursuance to the offences under a particular provision, against which the case is registered and the Investigating Officer submits its report and which constitutes to be the basis of submission of the chargesheet, it goes without saying that until and unless a specific allegation with regards to the nature of offence and bringing the complaint under that specific provision of law, which is complained of, constitutes to be the part of the complaint by its logical inference, which has been sought to be pressed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the complaint NCR No. 136 of 2012, registered at Kasna Gautam Budh Nagar, would be inclusive of an offence under Section 406, which has been taken as to be the basis for passing the impugned order on the pretext that once the offence under Section 406, since has been dropped by the courts at Kasna Gautam Budh Nagar, in that eventuality, for the same set of allegations and offence under Section 406, there cannot be a re-trial or a fresh trial by registration of the FIR with the courts at District Udham Singh Nagar, because with the change of territory and registering oft the FIR particularly for same incident and set of allegation it could not be reagitated in District Kashipur, was reason which was assigned by Session Judge, Udham Singh Nagar.

This Court after going through the records and particularly the contents of the complaint NCR No.136 of 2012, is of the considered view that the said complaint as registered in Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar, is not deciphering the commission of an offence under Section 406, thus, the said offence was never investigated upon by the Investigating Officer, who submitted the chargesheet for NCR No. 136 of 2012 and, hence, the reason, which has been assigned by the Court to the effect that Section 406 has been dropped by the courts at Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar, the same could not have been retried by registration of fresh FIR for commission of an offence under Section 406, that itself is an unfoundationed basis for drawing the aforesaid logic and that too when it happens to be contrary to the records itself. This in itself makes the impugned judgment to be perverse and based on misreading of documents on record.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that instead of expressing any opinion on merits with regards to the impugned order dated 06.08.2016, this court is of the view that since a perverse finding has been recorded by the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, the impugned order dated 06.08.2016 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the District & Session Judge to reconsider the revision preferred by the respondents afresh on its own merit and decide the same within four months from the date of service of the certified copy of this judgment.