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

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

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

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -