Anurag Chaudhary v. State of Uttarakhand Another

2024 titled "Ms. X (Victim) vs. Anurag Chaudhary", whereby cognizance has been taken against the Applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 376, and 506 IPC, and he has been summoned to face trial.

2. The FIR was initially lodged as a Zero FIR on 03.11.2022 at P.S. Muni Ki Reti, Tehri Garhwal, and was thereafter transferred for investigation to Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, where it was registered as FIR No. 584 of 2022 dated 21.11.2022. The complainant therein, Respondent no. 2, alleged that the Applicant had been blackmailing her over the past two years by editing and threatening to circulate obscene photographs of her. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1118 of 2024-----Anurag Chaudhary vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 1 Ashish Naithani J.

3. It is alleged that on 21.10.2022, under the pretext of returning such photos, the Applicant brought her to Shivpuri, booked a room in Hotel Chanakya, and forcibly committed rape upon her while threatening to circulate the photographs and kill her if she resisted.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the FIR is baseless, malicious, and driven by personal vendetta. It is contended that the Applicant and the complainant are both advocates and have known each other since 2008, having developed a close, consensual relationship over the years, despite both being married.

6. In support, the Applicant has relied on documents including photographs, hotel visitor registers, Aadhaar records, statements of hotel staff, CCTV footage, and financial transactions, which allegedly show both parties voluntarily staying together in multiple hotels and introducing themselves as a couple.

7. It is further submitted that during the investigation, the police recorded statements under Section 161 CrPC of hotel employees, including the manager and receptionist, all of whom stated that the parties appeared to be on cordial terms and checked in consensually. The police also recovered and verified transaction records showing that the Applicant had paid the complainant’s bills and transferred money to her account, indicating a continued voluntary association.

8. Learned counsel for the Applicant contends that the FIR was lodged only after he refused to divorce his wife and marry the complainant. A prior FIR lodged in 2015 by the same complainant under Sections 354D, 504, and 506 IPC had ended in a closure report after a compromise, further suggesting a pattern of personal motive. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1118 of 2024-----Anurag Chaudhary vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 2 Ashish Naithani J.

9. The investigating officer filed a final report concluding that no offence was made out, and also submitted a report against the complainant for filing a false case. Despite this, the learned Magistrate rejected the final report and took cognizance based on a protest petition and supporting affidavits filed by the complainant.

10. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance by relying upon materials filed by the complainant which did not form part of the police record. Learned Counsel for the Applicant contends that, in law, if a protest petition contains new material or fresh allegations, it is required to be treated as a complaint case, and the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC must be followed. It is urged that the direct summoning of the Applicant, without adherence to such procedure, renders the cognizance order legally unsustainable.

11. In response, RespondentNo.2 filed a counter affidavit opposing the application and asserting that the allegations in the FIR are truthful and supported by her statement under Section 164 CrPC. She denies any consensual relationship and reiterates that she was blackmailed and sexually assaulted under coercion.

12. It is alleged that the Applicant, being an influential lawyer and office bearer of the District Bar Association, manipulated the investigation process. She states that her initial efforts to get an FIR registered were thwarted due to the festive season and systemic delay, and she was compelled to approach senior police officials and later file Writ Petition No. 2228 of 2022 before this Court, seeking a proper investigation.

13. The complainant further alleges that the investigating officer deliberately ignored critical evidence including affidavits of independent witnesses, CCTV footage, and other supporting materials. These were supplied by her through registered post and in person, but allegedly not Criminal Misc. Application No. 1118 of 2024-----Anurag Chaudhary vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 3 Ashish Naithani J. incorporated into the final report. She contends that the final report was collusive and failed to reflect the material facts. She thus filed a protest petition along with affidavits and other supporting documents. After hearing, the learned Magistrate passed a reasoned order rejecting the final report and summoning the accused. The complainant points out that her statement under Section 164 CrPC and documents available in the case diary clearly supported the charge.

14. The complainant has also alleged that after the matter was listed for final orders, the Applicant, accompanied by several advocates, attempted to pressurize the learned Magistrate.

15. It is urged that the present application under Section 482 CrPC raises seriously disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage, and that the challenge to the summoning order is without merit, particularly when the learned Magistrate has exercised jurisdiction upon forming a prima facie view based on the material available on record.

16. This Court has carefully examined the rival submissions advanced by both parties and the material placed on record. The Applicant seeks interference with the summoning order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, whereby cognizance was taken against him under Sections 323, 376, and 506 of the IPC based on a protest petition filed by the complainant, after rejection of the police’s final report.

17. The primary ground urged by the Applicant is that the allegations made in the FIR are false and that the relationship between the parties was consensual. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged only after the Applicant refused to marry the complainant. The Applicant relies on materials gathered during the investigation, including CCTV footage, Criminal Misc. Application No. 1118 of 2024-----Anurag Chaudhary vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 4 Ashish Naithani J. hotel registers, and statements of hotel staff, all of which, according to him, point to a consensual association.

18. The further grievance of the Applicant is that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance by relying upon affidavits and documents filed along with the protest petition, which did not form part of the police investigation. It is urged that such reliance amounts to a departure from the settled procedure, and that the material accompanying the protest petition could have been entertained only if the protest had been treated as a complaint, thereby invoking the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC.

19. On the other hand, the complainant has reiterated the core allegations of coercion, blackmail, and sexual assault. She submits that the Applicant, being an influential member of the Bar, managed to manipulate the investigation process and that the final report was filed without proper consideration of her evidence. She contends that the Magistrate passed the summoning order after due consideration of the materials available, including her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC and the protest petition, along with supporting evidence.

20. It is well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance or issuing process, the Magistrate is only required to be satisfied whether a prima facie case is made out. It is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or assess the credibility of the prosecution or defence evidence. The availability of a final report by the police does not preclude the Magistrate from taking cognizance if the record discloses sufficient grounds to proceed.

21. In the present case, the learned Magistrate had before him not only the police record and the final report but also the statement of the complainant under Section 164 CrPC and her protest petition filed with supporting documents. The impugned order indicates that the Magistrate Criminal Misc. Application No. 1118 of 2024-----Anurag Chaudhary vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 5 Ashish Naithani J. recorded detailed reasons for rejecting the final report and was satisfied that prima facie offences under Sections 323, 376, and 506 IPC were made out against the Applicant.

22. The law permits the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC based on the police report or under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC if he treats the protest petition as a complaint. Whether he formally converts the protest petition into a complaint or not, the test is whether he has recorded satisfaction based on the materials before him. In this case, the materials relied upon include the complainant’s statement, protest petition, and supporting documents, all of which were considered in detail.

23. This Court finds no procedural irregularity or jurisdictional error in the manner in which the learned Magistrate took cognizance. The submission that the complainant’s protest petition could not be relied upon unless treated as a complaint is found to be misplaced. The learned Magistrate is not precluded from considering the material accompanying a protest petition to form satisfaction to take cognizance, so long as the process is neither arbitrary nor mechanically undertaken.

24. The allegations made in the FIR are of a serious nature and cannot be said to be inherently improbable at this stage. The contradictions or inconsistencies alleged by the Applicant, including prior consensual conduct or past relationship, are matters for trial. It is not for this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, to undertake a factual adjudication of these disputed issues.

25. It is also relevant to note that the Magistrate’s summoning order is a speaking order, supported by reasons, and cannot be said to be passed in a mechanical or perfunctory manner. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1118 of 2024-----Anurag Chaudhary vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 6 Ashish Naithani J. ORDER This Court is of the considered view that the Applicant has failed to make out a case for interference under Section 482 CrPC. The application lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC is hereby dismissed. Dated:27.06.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5 aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7F F0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Ashish Naithani, J. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1118 of 2024-----Anurag Chaudhary vs State of Uttarakhand & Another 7 Ashish Naithani J.