Satish Kumar Garg v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr

Judgment

1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the applicant, Satish Kumar Garg, seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 10.12.2019 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 22.07.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, in Criminal

Case No. 1946 of 2020. The proceedings arise from FIR No. 573 of 2019, lodged by respondent no. 2, Nitin Goyal, at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC.

2. The complainant, Nitin Goyal, alleged that he had constructed a ramp outside his shop, which the present applicant objected to. On

11.09.2019, at around 3:30 PM, the applicant allegedly instigated two unknown persons, who arrived at the complainant's residence around 9:15 PM and assaulted him with fists and kicks. It is further alleged that those assailants used filthy language, issued threats of dire consequences, and damaged household articles. According to the complainant, the instigation and conspiracy behind the incident were attributable to the applicant, who had prior disputes with the complainant regarding the ramp and public passage. Criminal Misc. Application No.759 of 2020, Satish Kumar GargVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 1 Ashish Naithani J.

3. Upon completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet dated 10.12.2019 against the present applicant under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the applicant vide order dated 22.07.2020. The applicant has approached this Court seeking to quash the said charge-sheet, summoning order, and the entire criminal proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR has been lodged out of personal vendetta and is a counterblast to the applicant’s objections to illegal encroachment made by the complainant. It is contended that no direct role has been assigned to the applicant in the alleged assault. The entire story, it is argued, hinges on conjectures and assumptions that the applicant "sent" two unknown persons, whose identity remains undetermined.

5. It is further contended that the applicant had, beforelodging the present FIR, apprised the local authorities regarding the obstruction caused by the complainant's ramp and the simmering tensions between the parties. The present FIR is, therefore, alleged to be a retaliatory measure, intended to misuse the process of criminal law.

6. The applicant also relies on the CCTV footage handed over by the complainant himself during the investigation, which, according to the applicant, fails to establish any nexus between him and the assailants. It is submitted that there is no material, either oral or documentary, connecting the applicant to the incident beyond bald assertions.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present criminal proceedings are not sustainable in the eyes of the law, as they rest on mere conjecture and suspicion rather than any concrete or admissible evidence. In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, to contend that the Criminal Misc. Application No.759 of 2020, Satish Kumar GargVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 2 Ashish Naithani J. continuation of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

8. Per contra, learned State Counsel, assisted by learned counsel for respondent no. 2, opposed the application and submitted that sufficient material was collected during the investigation, including statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, which prima facie implicate the applicant. It is further submitted that the motive for the offence, namely, longstanding animosity arising from obstruction to public access and allegations of encroachment, has been clearly articulated by the complainant and corroborated by independent witnesses.

9. It is submitted that the statements of the complainant and other witnesses were found to be credible during the investigation, and the charge sheet was not filed in a mechanical or perfunctory manner. The learned Magistrate, after due application of mind, took cognizance of the offence and passed the summoning order based on prima facie satisfaction.

10. It is further argued that the contention regarding CCTV footage is a matter of trial, and the evidentiary value of such footage cannot be conclusively determined in a quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC. The disputed facts and the defence raised by the applicant require adjudication on evidence and cannot be examined at this preliminary stage.

11. It is lastly contended that the grounds raised by the applicant do not fall within any of the exceptional categories laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. Hence, the application deserves outright dismissal.

12. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. Criminal Misc. Application No.759 of 2020, Satish Kumar GargVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 3 Ashish Naithani J.

13. The scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC is narrow and exceptional. The power is meant to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law or where the allegations made in the FIR or the charge-sheet, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose any offence. The principles guiding such exercise have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 116.

14. In the present case, the FIR and the charge-sheet do not merely rest on vague or bald allegations. The complainant has stated that the present applicant was involved in a prolonged dispute regarding the construction of a ramp and had previously issued threats. On the date of the incident, it is alleged that the applicant instigated unknown individuals who later assaulted the complainant at his residence. Though disputed by the applicant, these allegations are supported by the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC and constitute a prima facie basis for prosecution under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC.

15. The submission that the CCTV footage does not establish the applicant’s presence at the scene of the occurrence may be relevant during the trial, but it cannot be a conclusive ground for quashing at this stage. The offence of criminal intimidation and instigation under Section 506 IPC does not necessarily require physical presence at the scene if unlawful influence or abetment is otherwise alleged and supported by witness statements. The evidentiary worth of such material is a matter for appreciation by the trial court and not within the scope of scrutiny under Section 482 CrPC.

16. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance after examining the police report and accompanying documents. There is no indication that Criminal Misc. Application No.759 of 2020, Satish Kumar GargVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 4 Ashish Naithani J. the order of cognizance suffers from non-application of mind or that the charge-sheet was filed mechanically. It is not the function of this Court to evaluate whether the prosecution's case is likely to succeed, but rather whether it discloses the commission of an offence, which it does.

17. Further, the applicant’s argument regarding false implication due to personal enmity is a matter of defence, which he will have ample opportunity to raise before the trial court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, has observed that factual controversies and defences which require examination of evidence are to be resolved in trial, not in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

18. Overall, this Court is not persuaded that the case falls within any of the exceptional categories that would justify quashing of the proceedings. The allegations, on a prima facie evaluation, disclose a triable issue and do not appear to be inherently improbable or actuated by mala fide so as to warrant interference under Section 482 CrPC. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:06.06.2025 NR/ NITESH RAWAT DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea475 8e401cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897BCDC0B6567DCE4B710 8B324FFED3C8A159F3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT Criminal Misc. Application No.759 of 2020, Satish Kumar GargVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - 5 Ashish Naithani J.