Uttarakhand HC Dismisses Petition for Quashing Order in Case of Assault on Public Servant

Must Read

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Follow us

On 15th September 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice Ravindra Maithani heard the case of Reena Rani and Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors via video conferencing.

The Petitioners, in this case, were seeking the quashing of the charge sheet and summoning order in the case State v. Arvind Pandey and Others, pending in the Court of Special Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar.

Facts of the Case

The informant, who was working as Naib Tehsildar, was going to the Tehsil Headquarter, during which the co-accused Arvind Pandey, the then Member of Legislative Assembly, intercepted his car and asked him to get down. The co-accused, thereafter, told the informant that he wrongly decided the case of Hem Raj and slapped the informant. Thereafter, the informant was assaulted by other persons who were with the co-accused, and his documents, mobile phone, etc. were also taken away. 

An FIR was filed, after which an investigation was conducted and a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners and others. In the charge sheet, cognizance was taken, and the petitioners and co-accused were summoned under Section 147 (Punishment for rioting), 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of common object), 395 (Punishment for dacoity), 332 (Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 333 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 353 (Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 325 (Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 412 (Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity), 323 ( Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of The Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Petitioner’s Contentions

The petitioners contended that they were not named in the FIR and that they were not the persons who allegedly attacked the informant. There were allegations against the co-accused who were facing trial and who were also arrested during the investigation. 

Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner had no role in this and that there were serious allegations levelled against them without any reason.

State’s Contentions

Learned Counsel for the State argued that the factual aspects cannot be considered in proceedings under Section 482 (Saving of inherent powers of High Court) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The victim, in his statement recorded under Section 164 (Recording of confessions and statements) of the Code, had supported the prosecution case and named the petitioners categorically. They further contended that it was a case of common object and assaulting a public servant on duty, who sustained grievous injuries.

Court’s Analysis

The Court observed that it was a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. The jurisdiction was invoked to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to give effect to any order under the Code or otherwise and/or to secure the ends of justice. The jurisdiction is very wide but also guided by principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments.

The Court, while interpreting the scope of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, referred to the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736, which held that:

  • “A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.
  • A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court.
  • The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged.
  • The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
  • The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.”

The Court opined that the case was once investigated by the Investigating Officer. He had found the petitioners were involved in the offence and submitted a charge sheet for the same. The accuracy and credibility of the statement of the informant were thus further subject to scrutiny at the trial.

Court’s Decision

The Court dismissed the petition and requested the following to the Learned Court: 

  • To conclude the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible.
  • If possible, to conduct the trial on day to day basis, as and when the trial resumes without any adjournment to any of the parties.
  • The Investigating Officer may be required to remain personally present in Court along with witnesses on all the days when witnesses are examined.
  • To ensure the personal presence of the accused without exemption. The exemption to personal appearance may only be granted under exceptional circumstances for a particular day(s).


    Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -