Shiv Bachan Verma & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

N.S. Dhanik, J

This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 CrPC, is preferred to quash the chargesheet/cognizance order dated 8.9.2011 and the entire proceedings of the criminal case no. 4665/2011, State v. Shiv Bachan Verma & Others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

Facts, in brief, are that the complainant/respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR on 22.11.2008 alleging that on 16.11.2008, at about 10 o'clock in the morning, when the road of the Gram Sabha near the field of the complainant was being constructed, the accused applicants created hindrances in the construction thereof with intention to forcibly grab the land. When the efforts were made to persuade them, the accused applicants entered into the house of the complainant and abused and assaulted him. It is also alleged that the accused applicants were continuously threatening him.

During investigation, the police recorded 161 statements of the witnesses. The witness Gaurav Singh, who belongs to the family of the complainant, stated in his statement that the complainant and his brother, both are Advocate and on 16.11.2008, they planted the injuries and got prepared the fake medical reports and lodged the false report with intention to teach a lesson to the accused applicants and, in fact, the alleged incident did not happen at the spot.

None of the witnesses, in their 161 CrPC statements, supported the allegations made in the FIR. Consequently, police filed Final Report. Thereafter on the protest petition filed by the complainant, the Magistrate concerned ordered reinvestigation in the matter. After reinvestigation, the police again filed the Final Report. Again, on protest petition, the Magistrate quashed the Final Report and directed the police to conduct the proper investigation. After completion of the investigation, this time police filed the chargesheet against the accused applications whereupon the accused applicants have been summoned to face the trial for the offences under the aforesaid sections. Hence, this C482 petition.

Learned Counsel for the accused applicants submitted that none of the witnesses has supported the allegations made by the prosecution and accused applicants have been falsely implicated; after investigation, twice the Investigation Officer found that no offence is made out against the accused applicants and Final Report was filed; not only this, the Investigation Officer recommended for 182 CrPC proceedings against the complainant; and that the complainant being a local Advocate is abusing his authority. Learned Counsel argued that it is sheer abuse of the process of Court and the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy of filing revision before the Sessions Judge and has directly come to this Court. No date has been mentioned in the 161 statements and it shows that these statements have been forged and no reliance can be placed on such statements. Complainant had earlier filed a C482 petition, but this fact has been concealed.

Learned State Counsel argued that it is a matter of trial.

Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the papers on record, it is evident that the investigation was done thrice in the matter and on the first two occasions, the police filed the Final Report in the matter. It is also undisputed that the complainant is a local Advocate. None of the witnesses, in their statements to the police, supported the allegations made by the complainant. Rather, they stated that it is the complainant, who wanted to teach lesson to the accused applicants and, therefore, he lodged the false case against them.

Hon'ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2013) 9 SCC 293, has observed that in order to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings raised by an accused under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court should analyze (i) whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable and indubitable; (ii) whether the material relied upon by the accused is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint; (iii) whether the material relied upon by the accused cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and (iv) whether the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court and hence, would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all these questions is in affirmative, the Court should quash the proceedings by exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC.

Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case in hand, as discussed hereinabove, I am of the opinion that a prima facie case is not made out against the accused applicants and that continuance of the criminal proceedings will be a futile exercise and it would not lead to meet the ends of justice. Hence, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has absolutely no doubt that even if the impugned criminal proceeding against the accused applicant is permitted to continue, the ultimate consequence of the trial shall be the acquittal or dismissal of the indictment of the accused applicants.

Consequently, the present C482 petition is allowed. Chargesheet/cognizance order dated 8.9.2011 and the entire proceedings of the criminal case no. 4665/2011, State v. Shiv Bachan Verma & Others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed. Inform the Court concerned accordingly.