Back
2016 Supreme(UK) 354
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Dr. Sumeet Sofat - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application No. 908 of 2016
Decided On : 02-08-2016
For the Applicant : Mr. P.C. Petshali.
For the Respondent: Mr. V.S. Pal, Ms. Geeta Parihar.
The court emphasized that an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to stay criminal trial proceedings must have merit and not constitute an abuse of the court's process.
Headnote:
Abuse of Process - Criminal Trial - The court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to stay the proceedings of a criminal trial, emphasizing that the grounds presented lacked merit and constituted an abuse of the court's process.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought to stay the proceedings of a Sessions Trial under Section 376 IPC, citing various grounds including bias of the trial judge, replacement of the real prosecutrix with a fake one, and rejection of applications for recalling witnesses and seeking expert opinion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grounds presented in the application lacked merit and constituted an abuse of the court's process, ultimately dismissing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicant's request to stay the criminal trial proceedings based on various grounds including bias, rejection of applications, and seeking adjournments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the grounds presented were insufficient to warrant a stay of the criminal trial, and that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacked merit and constituted an abuse of the court's process.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to stay the proceedings of the criminal trial, highlighting that the grounds lacked merit and constituted an abuse of the court's process.
U.C. Dhyani, J.
1. The applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks following reliefs:
“To issue Most Most urgent directions to Ld. Trial court, to await the final judicial orders of this Hon’ble Court in pending 8 Criminal writ petition/criminal misc. applications (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) moved by applicant in this Hon’ble Court, during course of this criminal trial, (as detailed in para. No. 34), before passing final judgment in Sessions Trial no. 228 of 2010, State vs. Dr. Sumeet Sofat & another pending before Addl. Sessions Judge, 4th, Dehradun. Great prejudice will be caused to applicant, if his pending EIGHT writs/cri.misc. applications are not decided on merits, before end of this criminal trial.
Further additional prayer is being made to expeditiously decide the pending criminal misc. applications (U/s 482 Cr.P.C), moved by the applicant, (as detailed in para. No. 34), during course of this criminal trial, in the interest of justice, fair-play & equity.
Interim Prayer
It is further prayed that this Hon’ble court may graciously be pleased to stay the further trial proceedings of S.T. no. 228 of 2010, pending before Additional Sessions Judge (4th), Dehradun.”
2. The beauty of present judicial system is that everybody is assured of a fair hearing howsoever bogus his litigation may be. But, that is at the cost of other litigants. Mother earth has limited resources. If major chunk of the same is consumed by the monsters, very little is left for the angels.
3. Having a look at the petition, the grounds enumerated therein are as follows:
(i) The applicant is facing Sessions Trial under Section 376 IPC for the last six years. In the Sessions Trial being number 228 of 2010 pertaining to P.S. Kotwali, District Dehradun, the applicant initially engaged the counsel who left the case midway, as a result of which, the applicant could not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses effectively. Later on, the applicant engaged another senior most Advocate practicing on criminal side, at Dehradun.
(ii) The applicant moved an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and other criminal proceedings. The said application was decided by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2014.
(iii) Another false FIR was registered against the applicant on 14.02.2015 under section 364 IPC.
(iv) The trial Judge is biased against the applicant.
[Why? - not disclosed.]
(v) The applicant again moved an application for extension of one year time period, which was granted vide order dated 15.10.2014.
(vi) Real prosecutrix was replaced by fake prosecutrix.
(vii) The applicant moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling Investigating Officer and the prosecutrix. The said application was rejected.
(viii) This Court intervened and the Investigating Officer was recalled on payment of costs.
(ix) On 02.03.2016, statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.
(x) On 02.3.2016, an application was filed for summoning Government Scientific Expert. The same was also dismissed by the Trial Court on 09.03.2016.
(xi) On 15.03.2016, application for getting his identification done in Court was moved, but was dismissed.
(xii) On 30.05.2016, an application for adjournment was moved by the applicant, which was dismissed.
(xiii) On 16.06.2016, again such an application was moved, on which Trial Court directed the applicant to move an application for seeking Amicus Curiae on State expense. Legal aid was granted to the applicant.
(xiv) A list of witnesses was filed by the accused. Amicus Curiae sought adjournment and did not appear before the Trial Court. Opportunity to lead defence evidence was closed.
(xv) An application under section 340/195 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant. Applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. are pending before this Court, challenging various wrong orders of the Trial Court.
(xvi) Hence, prayed that the proceeding of Sessions Trial no. 228/2010 be stayed.
4. Any one of the aforesaid grounds is hardly a ground to stay
