Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1654
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Alok Mahra, J
Bhupal Singh – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
Criminal Case No. 124 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.C. Lakhchaura
For the Respondents: Akshay Latwal, Prabhat Kandpal, Prabhakar Joshi
The court emphasizes the limitation of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stating that defenses must be presented during the trial, and the application to quash was without merit.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing application - The applicant's contentions regarding false implication and efforts against corruption were deemed defense matters, properly addressed during trial - The inherent powers are to be used sparingly to prevent abuse of court - No merit found in application, leading to dismissal. (Paras 9, 12, 13)
(B) Inherent Power of High Court - This power should be exercised to secure the ends of justice, but should allow lower courts to do their work during trial. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, after alleging misconduct by a Village Pradhan, faced false charges from respondent no.2, leading to an inquiry revealing embezzlement. The applicant opposes the ongoing criminal case against him.
Findings of Court:
The raised issues are matters of defense that can only be evaluated during a proper trial.
Issues: Whether the applicant can escape charges based on alleged false implications amid ongoing criminal investigations against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that defenses raised can only be appreciated through evidence in trial, not in Section 482 proceedings.
Result: Application dismissed.
SL. N o .
D a t e
Of f i ce N o t e s, r e p o r t s, o r d e r s o r p r o ce e d i n g s o r d i r e ct i o n s a n d Re g i st r a r ’ s o r d e r w i t h Si g n a t u r e s
COURT’ S OR JUD GE’ S ORD ERS
C4 8 2 / 1 2 2 1 / 2 0 1 6 H o n ’ b l e A l o k M a h r a , J. Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned charge-sheet, summoning/ cognizance order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhikiyasain, District Almora in Criminal Case No. 124 of 2015 under Sections 392, 354 and 506 I.P.C. as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the litigation against the present applicant started long back in the year 2011, when the applicant made a representation before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, District Almora seeking an inquiry against the then Village Pradhan regarding alleged irregularities in works undertaken under various government schemes. The applicant had initiated a campaign against corruption in the distribution of government funds. It is submitted that the Village Pradhan is the real brother-in-law (Jeth) of respondent no.2/complainant. Following the said representation, respondent no.2 started threatening the applicant and his family members. Based on the applicant’s complaint,
an inquiry was conducted which revealed significant financial embezzlement by the Village Pradhan. Subsequently, a suit was also registered against him, and an FIR under Section 409 I.P.C. was lodged. The proceedings in that matter are still pending, and the applicant is witness no.2 in that case, although he has yet to be examined. Learned counsel for the applicant would 6. further submit that the applicant is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in the present case. The respondent no.2, in collusion with the Village Pradhan (his relative), has lodged a false case with the intent to exert pressure on the applicant, who has been actively exposing corruption. Hence, the present criminal proceeding is unsustainable in the eyes of law and same is liable to be quashed. Per contra, learned counsel for 7. respondent no.2 would vehemently oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. He would submit that the applicant has a criminal background and is involved in various anti-social activities. It is pointed out that another criminal proceeding, bearing C-482 No. 1136 of 2013, arising from an FIR lodged by one Smt. Chimuli Devi, is also pending against the applicant before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that after due investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet against the applicant. The trial court took cognizance only after considering the available material, and therefore, the summoning order is legally sustainable. He would further submit that the grounds raised in the present C-482 application are matter of trial, which can only be adjudicated at the
stage of trial on the basis of evidence, and hence, are not within the scope of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The applicant, therefore, is not entitled to any relief at this stage. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is well settled that the inherent powers 11. under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, only to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. 12. Having considered the submissions and the material on record, this Court is of the view that the contentions raised by the applicant are, at best, his defence, and are matters of evidence that can only be appreciated during trial and such issues cannot be exami
