Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 320
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Kaneej Fatima & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. - Respondents
C482 No.1331 of 2017
Decided On : 02-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Pankaj Joshi, A.G.A. and Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder, Mr. Chandan Singh, C.O. Laksar, District Haridwar, Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Inspector
IMPORTANT POINT
Mistaken identity claims must be resolved at trial, not through quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Criminal - Writ Petition - IPC Sections 147, 148, 332, 353, 307, 336, 504, 506; Criminal Law Amendment Act Section 7 - The court emphasized that mistaken identity is a matter for trial and not for quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought to quash a criminal case against them, claiming mistaken identity as they were not named in the FIR, but were identified by aliases. The prosecution argued they were indeed the individuals named in the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issue of mistaken identity requires evidence and is a matter for trial, not suitable for resolution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court noted the petitioners failed to provide original documents to support their claims.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could quash the criminal proceedings based on claims of mistaken identity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mistaken identity is a factual issue that must be resolved at trial, and the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed in limine.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
By means of present writ petition, petitioners seek to quash the order dated 08.09.2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.4761 of 2017 as well as proceedings of Criminal Case No.4761 of 2017 “State vs. Sageer and others” pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, District Haridwar.
2. Heard on admission.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused would submit that FIR/case crime No.619 of 2006 (Annexure-3) dated 21.12.2006 was lodged against 18 named and 30-40 unknown persons including Baby w/o Late Saleem and Rehman S/o Akhtar u/s 147, 148, 332, 353, 307, 336, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act at Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar; that, thereafter charge sheet dated 12.02.2008 (Annexure-4) was filed under the same sections against 14 persons including above two named persons; that, the learned C.J.M. Haridwar, vide order dated 03.09.2008, took cognizance against all the 14 persons u/s 147, 148, 332, 353, 307, 336, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act.
4. He would further submit that the petitioners were harassed by the police as the police wanted to arrest the petitioners in this case notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners did not have any role in commission of crime as alleged in the FIR and the charge sheet.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that this is a case of mistaken identity as petitioners are not specifically named in the FIR. However, the prosecution alleges that petitioner no.1 Kaneej Fatima is none other but Baby w/o Late Saleem and the petitioner no.2 Abdur Rehman is none other but Rehman S/o Akhtar.
6. He would further submit that he has brought on record ration card, Adhar card and voter ID of petitioner no.1 (Annexure-1) which clearly indicates the name of petitioner no.1 as Kaneej Fatima as stated in the writ petition and not Baby w/o Late Saleem as alleged by the prosecution. Similarly, for petitioner no.2 his voter ID and PAN card has been filed which is also part of Annexure-1 to show that the name of father of petitioner no.2 Abdur Rehman is Asgar Ali and not Akhtar. He would further submit that there is not an iota of doubt that petitioner no.1 Kaneej Fatima is not Baby W/o Saleem and petitioner no.2 Abdur Rehman S/o Asgar Ali is not Rehman S/o Akhtar.
7. He would further submit that the petitioner no.1 is a renowned person and a sitting counsellor also and thus it cannot be believed that police do not know her name.
8. Learned Additional Advocate General, per contra, would submit that the criminal case set into motion when the police party got the information that the dreaded criminal Nazim, who happens to be real brother-in-law (devar) of petitioner no1, was harboring criminals and the police party went to raid the house of Nazim, then Nazim and his family members and associates as named in the FIR attacked the police party. He would further submit that in the FIR itself petitioners were specifically named by their aliases/nick names by which they were popularly known in the society i.e. Baby w/o Late Saleem and Rehman s/o Akhtar.
9. Learned State counsel would further submit that this is not a case of mistaken identity rather the petitioners are misusing their real names for getting the criminal proceedings quashed notwithstanding the fact that Kaneej Fatima w/o Late Saleem and Baby w/o Saleem is one and the same person. Likewise, Abdur Rehman i.e. the petitioner no.2 is none other but Rehman S/o Akhtar, named in the charge sheet, is one and same person.
10. Learned State Counsel would further submit that petitioner no.1 is popularly known as Baby in her locality and petitioner no.2 is called by name Rehman in his locality and his father’s another name is Akhtar by which he is popularly called. He would further submit that the cognizance in the matter was taken on 03.09.2008 but the present petition was filed only after non-bail
