Ram Kishore Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

2. The case arises from FIR No. 59 of 2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dehradun, under Sections 147, 323, 427, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The incident allegedly occurred on 10-2-2021 and 11-2-2021, with the FIR being lodged on 12-2-2021.

3. The learned counsel for the Applicants contend that the FIR is false, concocted, and filed with malafide intentions. It is argued that Applicant No. 1 was actually the victim who sustained head injuries 1 Criminal Misc. Application No. 1546 of 2021-----Ram Kishore & Others vs State of Uttarakhand & Another Ashish Naithani J. while trying to save his minor son from being beaten by the Respondent's family members.

4. The counsel on behalf of the Applicantsclaims that they made an attempt lodge an FIR, but the same did not materialize. Consequently, they filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun

5. It is further contended on behalf of the Applicants that the FIR is highly belated, having been lodged after an unexplained delay of two days. It is alleged to be a counterblast aimed at shielding the respondent’s family from criminal liability. The Applicants submit that the invocation of the provisions of the SC/ST Act is misconceived, as the alleged incident did not occur in public view, nor is there any discernible motive or mens rea attributable to them to attract the rigours of the said enactment.

6. Learned counsel for the State, through the Investigating Officer, has filed a detailed counter-affidavit refuting the Applicants' claims. The State contends that on 10-2-2021, both parties approached Police Chowki Lakhibagh, and a non-cognizable report was registered based on the Applicants' complaint. However, on 11-2-2021, the Applicants allegedly committed further acts of violence, stone-pelting, and used abusive language including caste-based remarks against complainant and his family.

7. The investigation revealed that statements of the complainant, injured persons (Tushar, Sushil Kumar, Jugal Kishore), witnesses (Kusum, Ganesh Barthwal), and Mrs. Puja were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Medical reports of the injured persons were also collected during the investigation. Based on sufficient evidence, a chargesheet was filed under the relevant provisions.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2 Criminal Misc. Application No. 1546 of 2021-----Ram Kishore & Others vs State of Uttarakhand & Another Ashish Naithani J.

9. From a perusal of the FIR and the material on record, it transpires that the complainant alleged that a dispute arose between children during kite flying on 10.02.2021, and on the following day i.e., 11.02.2021, the Applicants and others forcefully entered the house of the complainant, assaulted the family members, damaged household property, and also used caste-based abusive language. These allegations are not vague or general but are supported by witness statements and medical reports. The investigating officer, after recording the statements of the complainant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and after collecting corroborative medical documents, found sufficient material to submit a charge sheet.

10. The plea of the Applicants that the FIR is delayed by two days does not, by itself, render the entire State’s case doubtful, particularly when the sequence of events shows that there were interactions between both sides on 10.02.2021 and 11.02.2021.

11. Furthermore, even if the Applicants had submitted a complaint earlier, a non-cognizable report was registered, as per the State’s affidavit, and the matter was under inquiry. The cross-versions of incidents are matters that need to be adjudicated at trial, and such factual disputes cannot be gone into under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction.

12. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of quashing proceedings, the Court is not required to examine the evidence nor evaluate its sufficiency meticulously. The test is only whether, on the face of the FIR and accompanying materials, a prima facie case is made out. In the present matter, the allegations against the Applicants are specific and supported by multiple statements and medical evidence. The ingredients of the alleged offences, including those under the SC/ST Act, appear to be satisfied at this stage. 3 Criminal Misc. Application No. 1546 of 2021-----Ram Kishore & Others vs State of Uttarakhand & Another Ashish Naithani J.

13. The contention that the offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out because the incident was not in public view is also a disputed question of fact. Whether the act occurred within public view or not is a matter to be examined during trial on the basis of evidence, and not a ground for quashing the proceedings at the threshold. Furthermore, the argument that the cognizance order was passed mechanically holds no weight, as the court of Special Judge has duly considered the materials placed on record and found sufficient grounds to proceed against the Applicants.

14. The Applicants' contention regarding lack of motive or mens rea cannot be accepted at this stage. The record indicates ongoing disputes between neighbouring families, which could provide sufficient motive. The question of mens rea is essentially a matter of evidence to be determined during trial.

15. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of court or where there is manifest injustice. In the present case, this Court does not find any such exceptional circumstance warranting interference. The charge sheet has been filed after due investigation, and the material collected clearly discloses commission of cognizable offences.

16. The trial court will be the appropriate forum to examine the evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, and determine the truthfulness of competing claims. Questions regarding the adequacy of evidence, credibility of witnesses, and weight to be given to different pieces of evidence are matters that can only be properly determined during trial after full examination and cross-examination of witnesses. ORDER 4 Criminal Misc. Application No. 1546 of 2021-----Ram Kishore & Others vs State of Uttarakhand & Another Ashish Naithani J. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application is dismissed. The stay of proceedings, if any, shall stand vacated. The trial court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with the law and without being influenced by any observations made herein. Dated: 21.07.2025 NR/ Ashish Naithani, J. 5 Criminal Misc. Application No. 1546 of 2021-----Ram Kishore & Others vs State of Uttarakhand & Another Ashish Naithani J.