HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No. 637 of 2022

(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)

Raghvendra Tiwari

… Applicant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another

… Respondents

Advocate:

Mr. Veer Kunwar Singh, Advocate, for the applicant.

Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, Deputy Advocate General, for the State.

Mr. Navnet Kaushik, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

When this C482 Application was initially argued, the

co-ordinate Bench of this Court had formulated the

following issues, on

which the learned government

advocate was called upon to answer, as to how the offence

under Section 500, which happens to be in the shape of a

private complaint, could at all be registered as a State

case. The question, as formulated by the co-ordinate Bench

of this Court on 10.05.2022, is extracted hereunder:-

“The Court wanted to know from the learned

counsel for the State and learned counsel for the

private respondent that, as to how, on an FIR,

charge-sheet may be filed for the offence

punishable under Section 500 IPC?”

2.

There are various rival contentions, which have been

raised by the learned counsel for the parties qua their

respective

cases,

about

the

sustainability

of

the

proceedings, as a State case. In case, had it been an

isolated case for conducting trial for the offence under

Section 500 of IPC, which as per the IPC, it's a non

cognizable and bailable offence, which is triable by the

Magistrate, and there cannot be any iota of doubt as such,

that had it been a case exclusively under the domain of

Section 500, it should have been registered as a complaint

2

case only. But there would be an exception to the instant

case owing to the FIR, which was got registered, being FIR

No. 10 dated 5th January 2020, where the offences, which

was complained of by the complainant was under Section

500, 504 and 506 of the IPC, which has to be compositively

read with for the purposes of taking cognizance and for the

conduct of trial too.

3.

So far as the offence contained in the FIR under

Section 504 of the IPC is concerned, under the IPC, it is too

a non cognizable and bailable offence, which is triable by a

Magistrate. But only owing to the fact that in the FIR, which

was got registered on 05.01.2020, the offence under

Section 506 was incorporated, which as per an unamended

law applicable prior to the carving out of Uttarakhand

State, the amendment made by the UP State by a

Notification dated 31st July 1989, it too would have been

both non cognizable, bailable and tribal by the Magistrate,

but since the U.P. State had carried an amendment under

Section 506 of IPC, so far its applicability in the State of

U.P. is concerned and by virtue of a Notification No.

777/VIII 9-4(2)/87 dated 31st July 1989, as it was got

published in the Official Gazette, the offence which was

contained under Section 506 of the IPC, was made as

cognizable and non-bailable offence. However, the sentence

which was contemplated to be imposed therein, so far it

relates to the State of UP as a consequence of 1989

amendment, it was seven years imprisonment and a fine

and both.

4.

At the time when the State of Uttarakhand was

created i.e. on 9th November 2000, with the enforcement

of the provisions of the U.P. Re-organization Act, the

3

adoption of law was contemplated under Section 87 of the

U.P. Reorganization Act, which is extracted hereunder:-

“87. Power to adapt laws.- For the purpose of

facilitating the application in relation to the State of

Uttar Pradesh or Uttaranchal of any law made before

the appointed day, the appropriate Government may,

before the expiration of two years from that day, by

order, make such adaptations and modifications of the

law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may

be necessary or expedient, and thereupon every

such law shall have effect subject to the

ad