HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

C482 Application No. 2101 of 2023

Neeraj Singh Adhikari

… Applicant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another

… Respondents

Advocate:

Mr. Vinoda Nand Barthwal, Advocate, for the applicant through

video conferencing

Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, AGA, for the State

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

A very peculiar argument has been raised by the

learned counsel for the applicant while putting a challenge

to the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1847 of 2023,

Jeevan Vs. Neeraj Singh Adhikari, being the complaint

proceedings drawn for the offences under Sections 504 and

506 of IPC.

2.

Firstly, the learned counsel for the applicant has

argued the matter that the complainant has not approached

the Court with clean hands for the reason being that much

prior to the registration of the complaint under Section

156(3) of CrPC on 04.03.2023, since the complainant has

not disclosed the fact about the proceedings under Section

107 to be read with Section 116 of CrPC, it will amount that

the respondent complainant had not approached the Court

with clean hands.

3.

Secondly, he argues that the complaint proceedings

would be bad in the eyes of law, because initiation of the

complaint proceedings, at a subsequent stage will amount

to be a recurring proceedings for the same cause of action

without disclosing the fact of institution of the earlier

2

proceedings under Section 107 to be read with Section 116

of CrPC.

4.

Thirdly, the learned counsel for the applicant argues

that initiation of the complaint proceedings on 04.03.2023

would attract the provisions contained under sub-Article (2)

of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, on the pretext that

nobody can be sentenced or prosecuted twice for the same

offences.

5.

As far as the initiation of the complaint proceedings

are concerned, they were the proceedings which were

drawn under Section 107 to be read with Section 116 of

CrPC. Let us make it very clear at this juncture, that once

the proceedings are contemplated to be drawn under the

procedural criminal law, and it is not punitive in nature,

rather reformative. It’s only for the purpose to ensure to

maintain peace and tranquility. It’s parlance could not be

sought, in a complaint proceedings drawn under the penal

provisions by invoking Section 156(3) of CrPC. Thus,

invoking the provisions contained under Section 107/116 of

CrPC, since it only intends to maintain peace and tranquility

amongst the public for any wrongful or an overt act that

may have occasioned resulting into a breach of peace or

disturbing of public tranquility.

6.

Widely speaking, Section 107 of CrPC is only for the

purposes to ensure that the public at large, their peace is

not breached, because of any untoward act and that is why

any orders which are required based on the same were

based upon the bonds, which are to be executed by the

accused persons against whom the proceedings under

3

Section 107 to be read with Section 116 of CrPC have been

drawn.

7.

Apart from it, the provisions contained under Section

116 of CrPC, where it contains that a penal action could be

taken against the person is only on an occasion when the

person who is called upon to furnish a bond, fails to furnish

that bond then only the penal provision comes into picture.

8.

Thus, the procedural law of Section 107, which has to

be read with Section 116 of CrPC cannot be read in

parlance to the provisions contained under Sections 504

and 506 of IPC, for which the complaint has been drawn by

the respondent before the competent Court, on which the

cognizance have been taken because it’s a penal action to

be taken on a criminal act of an accused which is absolutely

independent.

9.

The argument, as extended by the learned counsel for

the applicant with regard to the non-disclosure of the fact

about the prior initiation of the pro