Pradeep Kumar others v. State of Uttarakhand another

Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Hon’ble Justice Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated

08.03.2019, summoning order dated 25.05.2019, and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 470 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 1088 of 2018, under Sections 323, 326, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar.

2. An FIR was lodged on 05.12.2018 by respondent no.2 (Sachin Kumar) alleging that on 02.12.2018 at around 6:00 PM, the applicants, armed with sticks and iron rods, attempted to create a pathway through land belonging to the complainant’s uncle, Subhash. Upon objection, the accused persons allegedly entered Subhash’s house, abused and assaulted him with weapons, and caused grievous injuries. 1 Criminal Misc. Application No.1242 of 2019------- Pradeep Kumar and others v. State of Uttarakhand and another Ashish Naithani J.

3. The injured Subhash was medically examined, and the medical report indicated severe trauma, including a frontal bone fracture, which a radiologist later confirmed.

4. After registration of FIR, investigation was conducted and a charge sheet dated 08.03.2019 was submitted against the applicants under Sections 323, 326, and 504 IPC. Cognizance was taken and the learned Magistrate passed summoning order on 25.05.2019.

5. The applicants have challenged the proceedings on the ground of false implication, previous family enmity, existence of a cross FIR (Crime No. 1097 of 2018), and absence of credible evidence against them.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there exists long- standing animosity between the parties on account of a property pathway dispute, and the instant FIR is a counterblast to the genuine case lodged by the applicants (Crime No. 1097 of 2018), which is of the same date.

7. It was argued that the applicants also sustained injuries and were medically examined on the same day, which shows complainant party was the aggressor.

8. Learned counsel contended that the charge sheet has been submitted mechanically and is biased, without proper investigation, merely relying on statements of interested witnesses, and ignoring the applicants’ medical reports and defence version.

9. It was also urged that the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance, did not apply a judicial mind to the case diary or weigh the credibility of the allegations. Thus the summoning order dated 25.05.2019 is liable to be set aside. 2 Criminal Misc. Application No.1242 of 2019------- Pradeep Kumar and others v. State of Uttarakhand and another Ashish Naithani J.

10. Heavy reliance was placed on the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, to contend that the criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process and are liable to be quashed.

11. Learned State Counsel opposed the application and submitted that during the investigation, the statements of the complainant, the injured Subhash, eyewitnesses Vipin and Shahzad, and independent witnesses Yusuf and Dr. Gopal Gupta were recorded under Section 161 CrPC, all of whom corroborated the allegations.

12. The supplementary medical report of Subhash showed a grievous injury to the frontal bone, supporting the section 326 IPC charge. The complainant's version was contended to be credible and consistent with the medical evidence.

13. It was further argued that the cross FIR filed by the applicants is a matter of trial and does not negate the allegations in the present case. Both FIRs are being investigated, and charge sheets have been filed.

14. It was submitted that the learned Magistrate, after examining the police report, case diary, and accompanying statements, found prima facie material and took cognizance by summoning the accused. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order.

15. Learned counsel for the complainant (respondent no. 2) further submitted that any attempts at compromise were initiated only after the incident of assault, and that the applicants’ armed entry into the victim’s houseclearly establishes them as the real aggressors. Thus, the application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 Criminal Misc. Application No.1242 of 2019------- Pradeep Kumar and others v. State of Uttarakhand and another Ashish Naithani J.

17. The scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC is limited and should be exercised sparingly. The guiding principles are well laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), which provides illustrative categories where quashing may be justified.

18. However, this Court must be cautious not to interfere with legitimate prosecution proceedings where prima facie a cognizable offence is made out and where the factual matrix is disputed or under evaluation before the trial court.

19. In the present case, the allegations are specific and supported by medical evidence. The FIR, statements of the victim, eyewitnesses, and supplementary injury reports collectively form a prima facie case disclosing the commission of cognizable offences. The injury to the frontal bone has been categorised as grievous by a senior radiologist, which justifies the invocation of Section 326 IPC.

20. The existence of a cross FIR filed by the applicants does not automatically render the present proceedings false or malicious. It will be for the trial court to evaluate the veracity of both cases, weigh the evidence, and determine the role of each party. At this stage, such comparative appraisal is impermissible.

21. The argument that the Magistrate did not apply a judicial mind is also unsustainable. The summoning order dated 25.05.2019 was passed after perusal of the charge sheet and case diary, which included statements of independent witnesses and medical evidence.

22. The Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, held that where factual foundation for the offence exists, and the material collected during investigation supports a prima facie case, 4 Criminal Misc. Application No.1242 of 2019------- Pradeep Kumar and others v. State of Uttarakhand and another Ashish Naithani J. the High Court should not quash proceedings merely on disputed facts or incomplete defences.

23. Applying these principles, this Court finds no illegality or abuse of process in registering the FIR, submitting the charge sheet, or summoning the applicants. The grounds urged by the applicants are triable issues, not grounds for quashing. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, the application under Section 482 CrPC lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. It is clarified, however, that nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case pending before the trial court. (Ashish Naithani, J) Dated:05.06.2025 NR/ NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d 563d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e401cf436bdce 9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E8989 7BCDC0B6567DCE4B7108B324FFED3C8A 159F3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT 5 Criminal Misc. Application No.1242 of 2019------- Pradeep Kumar and others v. State of Uttarakhand and another Ashish Naithani J.