Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 174
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
U.C. DHYANI, J.
Manoj Paras - Applicant
versus
State of Uttarakhand and another – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application No. 709 of 2017 (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
Decided On : 31-05-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Prem Kaushal, Brief Holder., Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate.
The court emphasized the need to exercise inherent jurisdiction sparingly and the recognition of the power to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Abuse of Process of the Court - Criminal Proceedings - Section 452, 365, 342, 504, 506, 323, 171F/34 IPC - Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant seeks to quash the impugned cognizance order and the entire proceedings of a criminal case. The complainant lodged an FIR alleging trespass, assault, abuse, and abduction against the accused. The applicant, a local MLA, was implicated due to political rivalry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the foundation of a criminal offense was laid against the applicant, and the criminal proceedings should not be quashed. The summoning order was not passed without application of mind.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legitimacy of the allegations, the application of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., and the abuse of process of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the power to conduct further investigation is recognized under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with caution.
Final Decision: The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, and no interference was deemed necessary in the proceedings of the Court below.
U.C. Dhyani, J.
1. The applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 25.04.2015, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal in criminal case no. 230 / 2015, State vs. Mool Chand and another (connected with case no. 445 / 2014, State vs. Rafi Saifi & others), under Sections 452, 365, 342, 504, 506, 323, 171F/34 IPC, P.S. Laxman Jhula, District Pauri Garhwal, as also the entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case, pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Pauri Garhwal.
2. Complainant-informant-respondent no. 2 set the criminal law into motion by lodging FIR against some named and remaining 150 unknown accused persons on 18.02.2013, in relation to an incident, which allegedly occurred in the intervening night of 17/18.01.2013, for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 365, 342, 504, 506, 323, 171F/34 IPC, at P.S. Laxman Jhula, Sub District Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, stating therein, that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention trespassed into hotel Shiva Resort, committed assault with informant’s father along with 28 other persons, abused them and abducted them to some unknown secluded place.
3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was registered on 18.01.2013, at about 2345 hours by one Rohit Kumar, wherein it has been alleged that the informant and other persons, including the accused, are residents of District Bijnaur, U.P. There were elections of local bodies. One of the candidates namely, Lavi w/o Chatar Singh took the members to a particular resort situated in Laxman Jhula. It was averred in the FIR that in order to avoid undue pressure exerted on the members, they willfully moved out from district Bijnaur and were staying at resort situated in Laxman Jhula. The FIR further alleged that certain persons named in the FIR as well as 150 unknown persons came to resort and forcefully abducted all the members staying there. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, FIR was registered at P.S. Laxman Jhula as case crime no. 2/2013, under Sections 452, 365, 342, 504, 507, 323/34 IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was local MLA from Nageena constituency of District Bijnaur at the relevant point of time and was Minister of State in the State of U.P. Because of political rivalry, applicant has been implicated, though he has no concern with the elections of local bodies. The wife of present applicant, who is one of the members of the Zila Panchayat, however, was not contesting the elections of Chairman, Zila Panchayat. The applicant or his wife cannot be said to be interested in the election of Chairman of the Zila Panchayat. One of the important aspects of the matter is that though the allegations of abduction and kidnapping of members of Zila Panchayat are alleged, but all such members were very much present at the time of voting and participated in free and fair elections and cast their votes. There is no representation made by any of the members before any of the authorities conducting the elections or even before any of the authorities of the State of U.P. regarding allegations made in the FIR.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after the investigation was carried out in the matter, a charge sheet was submitted on 26.05.2014 against 8 persons. The said charge sheet, which was submitted before the learned trial court clearly provides that the allegations made against 8 persons were found substantiated, while for the rest of the two persons, were exonerated. There was specific entry made in the said charge sheet that the applicant has not been charge sheeted. Said charge sheet nowhere suggests that further investigating is under progress in the matter or any issue of filing of supplementary charge sheet is under process. A perusal of such charge sheet clearly reveals that, for all purposes, final report of the investigation was submitted and nothing m
