Dr. Vimal Nautiyal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

Petitioner, Dr. Vimal Nautiyal filed the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Codeâ€) for

quashing the summoning order dated 22.05.2014 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1611 of 2014, State Vs. Vimal Kant Nautiyal, pending

before learned Judicial Magistrate 3rd, Dehradun (for short “the caseâ€​).

The case is based on an FIR lodged on 19.11.2013 by respondent no.2 Home Guard Sushila Rawat. According to it, on 30.09.2013, respondent no.2

was on traffic duty at Dharampur Chowk. At 9:30 in the morning, the petitioner violating the traffic signals drove his scooter. He was signalled to stop,

but he did not respond. Thereafter, respondent no.2 left her place of duty, went to the petitioner and stopped his scooter. But, the petitioner started

threatening her, saying that he is a leader of political party. He would take away the dress of respondent no.2. The petitioner created a scene on the

spot and chaos ensued. The matter was informed to police control room. The police personnel came there, but the petitioner was not ready to move

from that Chowk. He was taken to the Police Station there also he created a lot of chaos. Ultimately, the petitioner admitted his guilt and executed a

letter of apology. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 332, 353 and 509 IPC against the

petitioner. On 22.05.2014, cognizance was taken and the proceedings of the case instituted. Petitioner seeks quashing of these proceedings.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner raised pointed arguments as follows:-

The FIR is delayed.

With regard to the incident which occurred on 30.09.2013, the petitioner filed a petition before the Uttarakhand Human Rights Commission,

Dehradun on 02.10.2013, in which, initially, the respondent no.2 did not appear, but finally she appeared on 12.11.2013 and thereafter, as a counter

blast to the petition filed by the petitioner before the Uttarakhand Human Rights Commission, instant FIR has been filed.

No action was taken by the Police against the petitioner for violating the traffic rules.

On behalf of the State, learned counsel would argue that, in fact, on 30.09.2013, the petitioner tendered apologies and admitted that he misbehaved

with the lady Home Guard. Thereafter, the matter was settled. It is also argued that the incident has been admitted by the petitioner in his letter for

tendering apologies; after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code, the matter cannot be

examined.

The scope of Section 482 of the Code is quite wide, but guided by settled principles. The purpose is to prevent abuse of process of any court or to

secure the ends of justice. Directions have been laid down in various cases.

In the case of India Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others, (2006) 6 SCC 736, Hon’ble Court summed up the principles as hereunder:

“12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal

proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a fewâ€"Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao

Chanrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426,

Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Duncans Agro

Industries Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045, State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla (1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628,

Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.,

(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786, M.

Krishanan v. Vijay Singh (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque (2005) 1

SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:

(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety,

do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.

For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a

meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining

prayer for quashing of a complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been

initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.

(iii) 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.

(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the

complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the

complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A

commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal

offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a

commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal

proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.â€​

In view of settled legal position, if cognizable offences are disclosed, interference is not warranted under Section 482 of the Code. But, at the same

time, if the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private

and personal grudge, jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code may be invoked (Para 102 (7) in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) and Para 12 (ii) in the

case of Indian Oil Corporation (supra)).

In the instant case, what is being argued is that as a counter blast, FIR in the instant case was lodged by respondent no.2. Counter blast to the

petition which was filed by the petitioner before the Uttarakhand Human Rights Commission. It is also settled law that the evidence cannot be

meticulously examined in this petition under Section 482 of the Code. Credibility, trustworthiness etc. are also not within the domain of this jurisdiction.

It is true that FIR is delayed in the case. The incident allegedly occurred on 30.09.2013 and report was lodged on 19.11.2013. Why is the delay

and what its effect? These are the matter which touches the credibility or trustworthiness of the contents of the FIR. They may not be a ground for

quashing the proceedings.

State though has filed counter affidavit, but has not averred that any case for violating traffic rules was lodged against the petitioner. This is

another matter which has a tendency to raise fingers on the credibility of the prosecution case. It may also not be a consideration for quashing the

proceedings.

The question is of counter blast. The question which is raised is with regard to the mala fide on the part of the prosecution. In fact, if proceedings

are launched with mala fide intention to wreak vengeance, perhaps the court may intervene.

Respondent no.2 was interrogated by Investigating Officer. She reiterated her version of FIR. There are witnesses like Rajiv Aggarwal, Rahul

Kumar, Rajeev Arora, Manikant Dixit, Makaan Singh Panwar and others, who in their statements supported the version of FIR. Constable

Dharmendra Kumar, in his statement to the Investigating Officer has stated about the incident and also told that at Police Station, the petitioner

accepted his mistake and tendered apologies and gave it in writing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that under compulsion he was forced to write the apology. These all are now disputed questions.

Something happened at the Dharampur Chowk for which the petitioner was apprehended. According to prosecution, he tendered apologies and he

was released. According to the petitioner, he was forced to write apologies. It is true that petitioner filed a petition before the Uttarakhand Human

Rights Commission and it is also true that subsequent to it, the FIR was filed. But, merely because of it, it cannot be said the FIR was lodged due to

any mala fide. Can it not be said that after tendering apologies and matter having been settled, when the petitioner agitated the matter before the

Uttarakhand Human Rights Commission, the respondent no.2 also approached the Police and if it is so, it may not be termed a mala fide act.

As some of the facts are disputed, they may not be decided in these proceedings. But, having considered the submissions, this Court is of the view

that it is not a case in which any interference under Section 482 of the Code may be warranted. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

The petition is dismissed.