Atar Singh and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

the FIR and the material collected during the investigation, is that an altercation took place between the parties, in which the injured 1 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 948 of 2024--------Atar Singh and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J. sustained serious injuries. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC. During the investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, and medical evidence was collected.

3. A charge-sheet was submitted on 10.05.2022. Subsequently, the complainant filed a protest petition seeking the addition of Section 307 IPC. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the police papers, protest petition and medical material, allowed the protest petition in part and summoned certain Applicants under Section 307 IPC vide order dated 12.04.2023, whereafter the criminal case was registered as Criminal Case No. 371 of 2023.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that the entire criminal proceedings are nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law and deserve to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. It was contended that the FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of about ten days from the date of the alleged incident, which itself creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution story and indicates that the allegations are the result of deliberation, consultation and afterthought.

6. It was argued that, as per the prosecution’s own version, the injured had herself entered the house of the Applicants, climbed onto the roof and initiated the quarrel. Learned counsel submitted that the injured fell due to her own negligent act and no overt act attributable to the Applicants is made out from the record. The allegations of forcibly throwing the 2 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 948 of 2024--------Atar Singh and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J. injured from the roof were stated to be inherently improbable and unsupported by independent material.

7. It was further contended that the investigation was conducted in a mechanical and biased manner, and the charge-sheet dated 10.05.2022 was submitted without collecting any cogent or reliable evidence to establish the ingredients of the alleged offences. Particular emphasis was placed on the fact that initially no offence under Section 307 IPC was made out, and the said provision was sought to be added only by way of a protest petition filed by the complainant.

8. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate erred in law in allowing the protest petition and summoning certain Applicants under Section 307 IPC without recording any specific satisfaction as to the existence of intention or knowledge necessary to constitute an offence of attempt to murder. It was argued that the summoning order dated 12.04.2023 has been passed in a routine and mechanical manner without proper application of the judicial mind.

9. It was lastly urged that the Applicants are law-abiding citizens with no criminal antecedents, and the continuance of criminal proceedings would result in undue harassment and miscarriage of justice. On these grounds, it was prayed that the charge-sheet, summoning order and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 371 of 2023 be quashed.

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the application and submitted that the scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC is extremely limited. It was contended that at this stage the Court is not required to appreciate evidence or examine the defence 3 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 948 of 2024--------Atar Singh and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J. version, and the only consideration is whether the material on record discloses a prima facie case.

11. It was argued that the FIR, statements of witnesses recorded during investigation and the medical evidence clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences. Learned State counsel submitted that the role of the accused persons, the nature of injuries and the manner of assault are matters which can only be adjudicated after evidence is led before the trial court.

12. Learned counsel for the complainant adopted the submissions advanced by the State and further contended that the protest petition was rightly allowed by the learned Magistrate after considering the medical material and seriousness of the injuries. It was submitted that the summoning order reflects due application of mind and no illegality or perversity can be attributed to it at this stage.

13. It was further submitted that the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained by the circumstances of the case and, in any event, the same cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings at the threshold. The defence raised by the Applicants regarding accidental fall and false implication was stated to be a disputed question of fact, which cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

14. Learned counsel thus contended that the application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed, leaving the Applicants to raise all permissible defences before the trial court in accordance with law. 4 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 948 of 2024--------Atar Singh and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J.

15. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has perused the entire material placed on record, including the First Information Report, charge-sheet, protest petition, medical material, and the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 12.04.2023.

16. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate the well-settled legal position governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is of an exceptional nature. It is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to a clear abuse of the process of law or where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence. At this stage, the Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or evaluate the defence version.

17. In the present case, the FIR discloses allegations of assault involving multiple accused persons, use of criminal force, and infliction of injuries. The investigation has culminated in the submission of a charge-sheet, which prima facie reflects that statements of witnesses were recorded and medical evidence was collected. The contention raised on behalf of the Applicants that the injured fell down on her own due to negligence and that the allegations are false squarely raises disputed questions of fact. Such factual controversies cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and can only be tested during trial by leading evidence. 5 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 948 of 2024--------Atar Singh and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J.

18. So far as the submission regarding delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, this Court is of the view that delay, by itself, cannot be a determinative factor for quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold. The effect of delay, its explanation and its impact on the credibility of the prosecution case are all matters to be appreciated by the trial court on the basis of evidence. At this stage, the delay does not render the prosecution case inherently improbable or absurd so as to warrant interference by this Court.

19. The challenge to the cognizance and summoning order dated

12.04.2023 also does not merit acceptance. A perusal of the said order indicates that the learned Judicial Magistrate considered the police papers, the protest petition filed by the complainant and the nature of allegations before summoning the accused persons, including under Section 307 IPC. At the stage of taking cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate is only required to form a prima facie satisfaction regarding the existence of sufficient grounds to proceed, and not to record a detailed judgment or conduct a roving enquiry into the merits of the case.

20. The argument that the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and that there was no intention or knowledge to cause death, again involves appreciation of the nature of injuries, the manner of assault and the surrounding circumstances. These aspects are essentially matters of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at this preliminary stage. The sufficiency or otherwise of material to sustain a particular charge is a matter to be considered at the appropriate stage before the trial court. 6 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 948 of 2024--------Atar Singh and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J.

21. This Court also finds no substance in the submission that the impugned proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or have been instituted solely with an ulterior motive. The material on record does not disclose a case where the allegations are so patently absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could ever reach a conclusion that an offence has been committed.

22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall within the narrow parameters warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. Interference at this stage would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution and would be contrary to the settled principles of law. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court does not find any ground to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 948 of 2024 is dismissed. All interim orders, if any, stand vacated. (Ashish Naithani, J.) Dated:28.11.2025 NR/ 7 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 948 of 2024--------Atar Singh and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Another Ashish Naithani J.