Smt. Munni Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral):

By means of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought quashing/setting aside of the impugned order dated 13.06.2016 passed by IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Complaint Case No.1965 of 2015, ‘Smt. Munni Devi vs. Mahipal & Others’, and judgment and order dated 07.11.2017 passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No.170 of 2016, ‘Munni Devi vs. State & Others’.

Brief facts of the case, as have been narrated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Application, are that the respondent nos. 2 to 5 wanted to grab the land/property of the applicant and came to the house of the applicant on 15.03.2015 and abused and assaulted her severely and threatened her with dire consequences and in the said incident earring of the applicant got lost her clothes and some documents were lost and she suffered loss of approximately ₹35,000/-. The applicant tried to lodge an FIR against the respondents, but the same was not lodged, after which she moved a complaint before SSP, but no action was taken. In the said circumstances, the applicant preferred a complaint.

It is further stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. that in the said complaint, the applicant has sustained injuries and was medically examined. A copy of the medical document has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the application. In support of the complaint, the applicant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of her witness Sanyogita was recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun heard the counsel for the applicant and after examining the complaint and the evidence on record, vide order dated 13.06.2016 dismissed the complaint on the premise that the main dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties is pertaining to a land dispute and regarding the land, a suit is pending adjudication before the Civil Court and the reason assigned by the IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun for dismissing the complaint was that the complaint has been filed by the complainant for creating unnecessary pressure and the trial court/ACJM came to the conclusion that ex-facie, no cognizable offence appears to have been committed so as to warrant summoning of the accused persons and the complaint deserves to be dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 13.06.2016, proceeded to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

Aggrieved against the order dated 13.06.2016, the complainant/applicant herein preferred a Criminal Revision, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 170 of 2016 and the same too has been dismissed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun vide judgment and order dated 07.11.2017.

Assailing the impugned orders, the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ketan Aswal has submitted that the impugned orders are wholly illegal, arbitrary, and have been passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures and as such deserve to be set aside. Although from perusal of record, it is prima facie evident that the respondents have assaulted and abused the applicant and caused undue loss to the applicant and as such the learned courts below erred in rejecting the complaint and the revision merely on the ground that the dispute appears to be civil in nature. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that merely due to pendency of the civil suit, the respondents cannot escape from their criminal liability. It is further the case, as borne out from the reading of the Criminal Miscellaneous Application that it has been contended on behalf of the applicant that it is settled law that an act can result in both civil and criminal liability and merely because the act of a person has civil liability that does not mean that it cannot also have criminal liability and he would thus submit that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and deserve to be quashed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5, Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, would submit that no such incident, as alleged to have been committed by the accused/respondents 2 to 5 was ever committed on the particular date. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 would further submit that it is clear from the bare reading of the impugned orders that no medical evidence in the form of any medical examination report was filed before the court below so as to enable the court to come to a conclusion that the alleged maarpeet was ever committed.

Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 has also invited the attention of the Court to para no.4 of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, wherein it is stated that in the said complaint, the applicant sustained injuries and was medically examined. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 by drawing attention of the court to Annexure No. 2, which is a copy of a medical document dated 20.11.2012 would submit that the same does not support the case of the complainant/applicant herein, inasmuch as the said document annexed as Annexure No. 2 is dated 20.11.2012, whereas the allegations about the maarpeet, assault, etc., and abusing are of 15.03.2015 and he would further submit that the said medical document has been issued in respect of one Mr. Raiya and not the applicant whose name is Munni Devi.

He would further submit that the impugned orders have taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the trial court as well as the Revisional Court have considered that there are certain revenue litigation pending in between the parties much prior to the alleged incident which has been mentioned in the complaint, for which the complainant alleges that offences are made out.

Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 would further draw the attention of the court to Annexure No. 2, which is the medical document and he would submit that in the said medical document itself, it has been stated that it pertains to a road accident which happened in November 2012 and he would further submit that the same has no relevance in the present case and a false statement has been made in the Criminal Miscellaneous Application.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it is evident from the reading of the complaint as well as the impugned orders that there were certain prior litigations pending between the parties, as has been stated in the complaint itself.

It is further evident from the reading of the Revisional Court’s judgment & order that there is no medical examination report available in the file regarding the alleged maarpeet.

It is further borne out from the reading of the Revisional Court's judgment & order that regarding the manner and the exact abuses which were hurled at the complainant/applicant herein, there is no evidence available on the record from which it could be said that a cognizable offence is made out.

The order of the learned IIndAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun dated 13.06.2016, as well as the Revisional Court's order dated 07.11.2017 are based on record and from them, it is clear that there is no medical examination report qua the applicant herein so as to substantiate the allegation of maarpeet. It is also not stated in the complaint itself as to what exact abuses were hurled and what exact threats were extended.

The trial court as well as the Revisional Court have therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that the main dispute admittedly between the parties pertains to land and there is a case pending in the court and thus came to the conclusion that the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

It is not only this in the Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in para no.4, the medical document which is alleged to be of the injuries sustained by the complainant is in fact, not the document which relates to the allegation of maarpeet as has been alleged to have been committed with the applicant on 15.03.2015.

This Court finds force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 that the Annexure No. 2, which is alleged to be a medical document of the injuries sustained by the applicant, pertains to a road accident of one Mr. Raiya, which is dated 20.11.2012.

In such view of the matter, since the main dispute between the parties admittedly pertains to a dispute regarding land and the allegations regarding the maarpeet with the complainant on 15.03.2015, have not been substantiated by filing any medical examination report. In fact, the medical examination report which is alleged to be of the incident in which the applicant has been injured is pertaining to some Raiya and therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the applicant has not been able to substantiate the allegations as made in the complaint and an attempt has, in fact, been made to mislead the Court.

In such facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 13.06.2016, passed by the learned IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun as well as the Revisional’s Court order dated 07.11.2017, passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun do not warrant any interference and the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, present Criminal Misc. Application No.419 of 2018 is dismissed.