The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the Code to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, as well as the requirement for the allegations to satisfy the essential elements of the offense.

JUDGMENT

Alok Kumar Verma, J. - This Criminal Misc. Application is preferred under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing the F.I.R. dated 17.11.2012, registered with Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar as Case Crime No.237 of 2012 under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (in short as the Act, 1971) and entire subsequent proceedings as well as the summoning order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.1383 of 2013 State vs. Jaideep Arya and three others.

2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the F.I.R. was lodged in the light of an information of Rana Ranveer Singh, Pradesh Pramukh, Samajik Sena. According to the F.I.R., on 07.10.2012, there was a demonstration in front of Police Station Kankhal by the supporters of Yog Guru Baba Ramdev and Bharat Swabhimaan Trust over the arrest of a Journalist. The said demonstration ended on 16.10.2012 on the assurance of the Administration. The National Flag of India was insulted by the supporters of Baba Ramdev in front of Police Station Kankhal. Attaching some photographs with this information, it had been requested that a strict action should be taken against those who insulted the National Flag by registering a case of sedition and strict action should be taken against government employees in front of whom the National Flag was insulted.

3. The F.I.R. was registered against the applicant-accused Dr. Jaideep Arya and unknown supporters of Bharat Swabhimaan Trust. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against all the applicants-accused persons.

4. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar took the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 2 of the Act, 1971 and summoned the applicants-accused persons. After filing of this Criminal Misc. Application, further proceedings of Criminal Case No.1383 of 2013, State vs. Jaideep Arya and others were stayed.

5. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Atul Kumar Sah, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand and perused the records.

6. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Magistrate took cognizance without application of mind; the applicants are not named in the information given by the informant; the informant/ respondent No.4 died on 30.06.2019; the offence punishable under Section 2 of the Act, 1971 is not made out against the applicants; there was no intention to disrespect the National Flag by any of the participants nor any disrespect was committed by either of them; the F.I.R. and subsequent investigation was conducted with the sole intention to defame the applicants; one of the applicants belongs to freedom fighters family of India and working for the country for many years; the applicants cannot be sent up for trial on account of vicarious liability as held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ganesh Lal Bathri vs. State of M.P., 2004 Cri.L.J. 1002 .

7. The learned counsel for the State submits that the proceedings to withdraw from prosecution of this case is pending before the Government.

8. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code include powers to quash F.I.R., investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before any court subordinate to it. Such power can be exercised to secure ends of Justice, to prevent abuse of process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case.

9. The inherent powers of the Court can be invoked in three situations indicated in Section 482 of the Code :

(i) in order to give effect to an order passed under the Code, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of process of the Court, and

(iii) to secure the ends of Justice.

Such powers should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice.

10. In State