Ripudaman Singh and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

and an FIR was lodged by the applicants against the aforesaid RPF constables. The aforesaid FIR was 3 registered at Police Station GRP Laksar, District Haridwar at 1:15 AM of 24.02.2011. That subsequently, after reaching Shahjahanpur, Rajpal Singh (Head Constable, RPF) lodged an FIR as a counter blast. In the said complaint, it was alleged that while they were patrolling in the train near the Handicap Coach, five persons in drunken state arrived near the coach and tried boarding it. After trying to stop them to leave the handicap coach, when they didn't left the coach, it lead to quarrel between both the parties. It was further alleged that soon thereafter Constable Shashi Kumar ran to save Constable Ravindra Kumar and in the meanwhile the accused persons tried snatching the Carbine of Constable Ravindra Kumar due to which the official shirt of Constable Ravindra Kumar torn, the chain of the train was also pulled due to which the train halted there for about 7 minutes. It was further alleged that thereafter the accused party (including the applicants) threatened them to dire consequences.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the instant case is totally fake and a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the applicants; that soon after coming to know about the aforesaid FIR lodged by the applicants, and after reaching Shahjahanpur, which is very far from Laksar, Rajpal 4 Singh (Head Constable RPF) gave a frivolous complaint based upon a concocted story as a counter blast; that upon such a complaint made by respondent no. 2, the case was registered as Case Crime No. 92 of 2011 dated 27.02.2011 at RPF Laksar under Sections 153, 141, 145, 146 & 155 of Railways Act, 1989 & hence the investigation was carried out by the Railway Police Force Laksar who in order to save its departmental persons has cursorily reiterated the stand of respondent no. 2 and had further neglected the instant FIR lodged by the applicants by mentioning that the same has been falsely lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants would further submit that the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants is nothing but the counterblast to the F.I.R. lodged by the applicants against the RPF personnel, therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the grounds taken in the present application is a matter of evidence, which can be considered only at the time of trial on the basis of evidence led by the parties and cannot be considered by this Court in an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., that, the High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot adjudicate upon the 5 veracity of the facts alleged or enter into appreciation of competing evidence presented, rather limited question for determination in these proceedings can be whether on the face of FIR, the allegations constitute a cognizable offence, if yes, then power under section 482 cannot be exercised to quash the FIR.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2, on the other hand, would submit that since prima-facie FIR discloses cognizable offence alleged to have been committed by the applicants, this Court may not exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, the applicants are not entitled for any relief at this stage.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. In the instant case, the FIR discloses commission of offences. Whatever arguments have been raised, in fact, they touch the factual aspects of the matter. At the stage of Section 482 of the Code, a mini trial may not be conducted. Evidence cannot be evaluated. Reliability, trustworthiness and credibility of the evidence of the witnesses is a subject-matter for trial. Merely because the applicants had filed an FIR in advance, the subsequent FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of malafide. As stated, to substantiate such allegations, there should be some compelling reasons or 6 material, which is conspicuously lacking in the instant case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference in the matter.

9. Accordingly, the present C-482 application deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Ujjwal (Alok Mahra, J.) 31.07.2025