Sunil Kotnala and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and ors

quashing of FIR No. 0592 of 2024 dated 19.09.2024, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, Dehradun, and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The FIR in question was lodged by Respondent No. 2, alleging that in the first week of April 2024, the Petitioner attempted to coerce the complainant into exchanging his plot with another situated at a prime location. It is further stated that upon the complainant’s refusal to comply with such a demand, he was subjected to threats and undue pressure, which ultimately culminated in the registration of the present case.

3. On the basis of the said report, an investigation was commenced by the police. The Petitioner, apprehending coercive action, has Criminal Writ Petition No. 1097 of 2024, “Sunil Kotlana and Anr.Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors” - 1 Ashish Naithani J. approached this Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction, to quash the proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, even if accepted at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the Petitioner. It was argued that the entire dispute pertains to the issue of exchanging residential plots and is, in essence, a civil dispute between private parties. By clothing the matter with criminality, the complainant has sought to misuse the machinery of law to exert undue pressure upon the Petitioner.

5. Learned counsel further contended that the FIR is a product of mala fide and has been lodged in collusion with the local police with a view to harassing and humiliating the Petitioner. It was argued that the substratum of the allegations does not satisfy the ingredients of the penal sections invoked, and therefore, permitting investigation or subsequent proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

6. To fortify his submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein categories have been illustrated in which the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC may be exercised to quash criminal proceedings at the threshold. He further referred to Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, to contend that when the allegations are ex facie civil in nature, continuation of prosecution is unwarranted.

7. Per contra, learned AGA for the State opposed the application. He submitted that the FIR contains specific allegations which prima Criminal Writ Petition No. 1097 of 2024, “Sunil Kotlana and Anr.Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors” - 2 Ashish Naithani J. facie constitute cognizable offences, and an investigation was initiated in accordance with the law.

8. It was argued on behalf of the state that at this preliminary stage, the Court is not expected to weigh the probative value of the evidence or embark upon a detailed scrutiny of facts. It was further submitted that the defence taken by the Petitioner, including the plea of civil dispute, can only be considered during trial, and not in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

9. Learned AGA also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, to submit that the extraordinary jurisdiction to quash an FIR ought to be exercised sparingly and not to stifle a legitimate investigation at its inception.

10. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 (complainant) also opposed the prayer for quashing. He submitted that the Petitioner approached the complainant in April 2024 with the intention of securing a prime location plot by coercive means. Upon his refusal, threats were extended, leading to the lodging of the FIR. It was argued that these allegations disclose the intention of the Petitioner from the very inception and thus cannot be said to be merely civil in character.

11. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 emphasised that the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC corroborate the version of the complainant. It was urged that the proceedings cannot be terminated at the very threshold. Counsel further submitted that quashing of the FIR at this stage would amount to an unwarranted interference with the investigative process and would deprive the complainant of the opportunity to substantiate his allegations during trial. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1097 of 2024, “Sunil Kotlana and Anr.Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors” - 3 Ashish Naithani J.

12. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records. 13. The extent of interference under Section 482 CrPC is settled in law. The inherent power of this Court is intended to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and not to short-circuit a legitimate prosecution at the very threshold. Such jurisdiction is invoked only to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice.

14. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court illustrated categories of cases in which exercise of inherent power may be justified, such as where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken on their face value, do not constitute any offence, or where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive. At the same time, the Court made it clear that these categories are illustrative and not exhaustive, and that the extraordinary power to quash must be used sparingly.

15. Examining the present case on the touchstone of the principles enunciated in Bhajan Lal (supra), it is clear that the FIR dated

19.09.2024 cannot be said to disclose no offence at all. The allegations, as narrated by the complainant, specifically refer to an incident in April 2024 wherein the Petitioner is said to have pressurised him to exchange his plot for one situated at a prime location, and upon refusal, threats were allegedly extended.

16. These averments, viewed in their proper perspective, constitute acts which cannot be brushed aside as a mere civil dispute simpliciter. The element of coercion and dishonest intent alleged from the inception brings the matter within the realm of criminal law. 17. The plea of the Petitioner that the FIR is false, motivated, and the product of collusion with the police, also does not persuade this Criminal Writ Petition No. 1097 of 2024, “Sunil Kotlana and Anr.Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors” - 4 Ashish Naithani J. Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. Allegations of mala fides or ulterior motive are, by their very nature, issues of fact that can only be tested on the basis of evidence. The veracity of the complainant’s version and the credibility of his witnesses are matters to be evaluated at the stage of trial and not in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

18. It is also to be borne in mind that, at this stage, the Court is not required to meticulously evaluate the sufficiency of evidence or to render a finding on the veracity of the allegations.

19. The limited enquiry at this stage is confined to examining whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of an offence known to the law. The defence set up by the Petitioner, including the assertion that the dispute is civil in nature, pertains to matters of fact that remain within the domain of trial and cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction.

20. The inherent power is not intended to function as an appellate forum over the investigative process. Once the allegations in the FIR disclose cognizable offences, the investigation must be allowed to proceed in accordance with the law. Interference at this stage, by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction, would amount to stifling a prosecution before the investigating agency or the trial Court has had an opportunity to examine the material in detail.

21. On a holistic consideration, therefore, this Court finds that the case does not fall within any of the illustrative categories delineated in Bhajan Lal (supra). The allegations, if proven, would attract criminal liability; hence, this Court cannot hold that continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process. On the contrary, it is only by permitting the investigation and trial to continue that the Criminal Writ Petition No. 1097 of 2024, “Sunil Kotlana and Anr.Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors” - 5 Ashish Naithani J. truth of the rival versions can be ascertained in accordance with the ORDER In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR in question. The allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences and do not bring the case within any of the categories laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra). Accordingly, the present application stands dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ashish Naithani J.)

26.08.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Criminal Writ Petition No. 1097 of 2024, “Sunil Kotlana and Anr.Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors” - 6 Ashish Naithani J.