Abhishek Sendhwal and another …… v. State of Uttarakhand and another

length and perused the FIR, charge-sheet and entire material available on record. Since, the offences lodged against the applicant are very serious in nature and prima facie made out a case against the applicants, it is essential for the ends of justice that the applicants should be subjected to a proper trial. In a catena of judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that High Court should be slow in interfering with the criminal proceedings, if prima facie the case is made out against the applicants. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531, in its Para 12 has held as follows:- “12. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.”

8. Recently, in the case of Neeharika, Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that criminal case shall not be scuttled at the initial stage. Relevant sub paras of Para 33 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:- “33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, 3 in the “rarest of rare cases” (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; 33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; the court has to permit

9. After keeping the above principle in mind, this Court is of the opinion that as prima facie case is made out against the applicants and the charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicants were summoned after cognizance, this Court cannot enter into merits of the case at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only be proved during trial, after both the parties would adduce their respective evidences.

10. Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed.

11. Interim order dated 01.09.2023 stands vacated. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.05.2025 4

length and perused the FIR, charge-sheet and entire material available on record. Since, the offences lodged against the applicant are very serious in nature and prima facie made out a case against the applicants, it is essential for the ends of justice that the applicants should be subjected to a proper trial. In a catena of judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that High Court should be slow in interfering with the criminal proceedings, if prima facie the case is made out against the applicants. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531, in its Para 12 has held as follows:- “12. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.”

8. Recently, in the case of Neeharika, Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that criminal case shall not be scuttled at the initial stage. Relevant sub paras of Para 33 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:- “33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, 3 in the “rarest of rare cases” (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; 33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; the court has to permit

9. After keeping the above principle in mind, this Court is of the opinion that as prima facie case is made out against the applicants and the charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicants were summoned after cognizance, this Court cannot enter into merits of the case at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only be proved during trial, after both the parties would adduce their respective evidences.

10. Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed.

11. Interim order dated 01.09.2023 stands vacated. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.05.2025 4