Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(UK) 256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROVEHIT, J.
Sonu @ Anees and others - Applicants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application No. 757 of 2017, Criminal Misc. Application No. 265 of 2017
Decided on : 09-06-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rawal,

The court emphasized that the Magistrate, at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply judicial mind only to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused persons. The correctness and otherwise of the allegations can only be decided in trial, and the disputed question of facts can only be examined by the trial court at the time of trial based on the evidence adduced by the parties.

Headnote:
Abuse of Process of Law - Criminal Case - IPC 141, 283, 341, 332 - Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 7 - [141, 283, 341, 332, 7] - The court found that there was no illegality committed by the court below while taking cognizance and summoning the accused applicants on the basis of the charge-sheet and papers accompanying it. It discloses a prima facie case against the applicants to face the trial. The disputed question of facts can only be examined by the learned trial court at the time of trial on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.
Fact of the Case:

The applicants filed C-482 applications challenging the charge-sheet, summoning order, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 46 of 2016 for offences under IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. The First Information Report disclosed a dispute over land, resulting in a traffic jam and endangering the lives of individuals. The applicants felt aggrieved by the charge-sheet and summoning order, claiming an abuse of process of law.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no illegality in the cognizance and summoning order. It held that the charge-sheet and papers accompanying it disclosed a prima facie case against the applicants to face trial. The disputed question of facts can only be examined by the trial court at the time of trial based on the evidence adduced by the parties.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the cognizance and summoning order, with the applicants claiming an abuse of process of law and the state counsel arguing that a prima facie case of offences was made out from the First Information Report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the law regarding the Magistrate's role in taking cognizance and issuing summons. It cited precedents to emphasize that at the initial stage of issuance of process, the Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the material or evidence in support of the complaint, and the correctness and otherwise of the allegations can only be decided in trial.
Final Decision: The C-482 applications were dismissed, and the court did not find any occasion to interfere in the impugned summoning/cognizance order and/or the criminal proceedings. The applicants were given liberty to surrender before the trial court and seek bail in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

JUDGMENT :

The present C-482 applications have been filed by the applicants challenging the charge-sheet dated 02.12.2015, which was filed pursuant to First Information Report dated 06.02.2015, summoning order dated 22.01.2016 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 46 of 2016 (Case Crime No. 70 of 2015), for the offences punishable under Sections 141, 283, 341, 332 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Manglour District Haridwar.

2. The First Information Report was lodged by SHO Shri Jasveer Singh Pundir, In-charge Kotwali Manglour, District Haridwar on 06.02.2015 at about 21:40 hrs, on the basis of whih, Case Crime No. 70 of 2015, under Sections 141/283/341/332 of IPC and Section 7(i)(x) of Criminal Law Amendment Act was registered.

3. The averments made in the First Information Report disclose that on 06.12.2015, SHO-Shri Jasveer Singh Pundir along with police party, was on Gasht(round) in vehicle No. UK08GA0157 in around Narson Kasba. At about 09:30 AM, SSI Naveen Chandra Semwal informed the SHO that a dispute was going on in respect of a land, near Manglour and the National Highway was jammed in order to get forcible possession of landin- dispute to one Sukram Pal and Chaman Lal. At this information, the informant SHO alongwith SI Raghuveer Singh Chaudary, SI Pratap Singh Chauhan, SI Ramkumar Juyal with force and SHO Kotwali Civil Line Roorkee Shri V.D. Uniyal, SHO Kotwali Gangnahar Shri Dinesh Singh Bhandari also reached at the spot with the force.

4. Sukram Pal and Chaman Lal with the help of 100 to 150 unknown people made an unlawful assembly and had jammed the National Highway by parking vehicles cris-crossed. In this traffic jam, the ambulance carrying a patient was also got stuck causing a danger to the life of the patients and also to the passengers. Some of the passengers were going through train and aeroplane, also got stucked and this traffic jam caused financial, physical and mental harassment to them.

5. After investigation, a charge-sheet no. 402 of 2015 dated 02.12.2015 was submitted against 15 persons, including the applicants and cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Roorkee, Haridwar vide order dated 22.01.2016 against them under Sections 141/283/341/332 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, and the applicants were summoned to face the trial.

6. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid charge-sheet and summoning order, the present C-482 applications have been filed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

8. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the cognizance order and the summoning order have been passed in a cyclostyle manner and no finding was recorded by the Magistrate while taking cognizance against the applicants. It has also been submitted that the criminal law machinery cannot be set into motion as a matter of course, as it has a serious implication in the life of the applicants.

9. With the strength of this argument, it is contended that the instant criminal case is nothing, but, an abuse of process of law and if it is allowed to be continued, the same would amount a miscarriage of justice against the applicants.

10. Per contra, learned State Counsel has submitted that from the perusal of the First Information Report, a prima-facie case of offences under Sections 141/283/341/332 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, is made out and the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Roorkee, took the cognizance on the matter on the basis of the documents submitted in the police report/charge-sheet and thereafter, summoned the accused4 applicants. There is no illegality, as indicated by the counsel for the applicants in the cognizance and the summoning order.

11. This Court, with the help of the learned counsel for the parties, examined the cognizance order/summoning order dated 22.01.2016, the First Information Report and the chargesheet.

12. The learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document