C482/1414/2021 of KIRAN PAL Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc.Application No.1414 of 2021

Kiran Pal and another

......Applicants

State of Uttarakhand and Anr. …..Respondent

Presence:

Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the applicants.

Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA, for the State.

Mr. Sharang Dhulia, learned counsel for the private respondent no.2.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1.This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, preferred by the applicants, Kiran Pal and Sonu, seeking quashing of the First Information Report being FIR No. 0321 of 2020, registered at Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506, and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with the charge-sheet dated 14.11.2020 and the summoning order dated 22.01.2021 passed in Criminal Case No. 456 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.

2.As per the FIR lodged by respondent no. 2 (the complainant), on 06.11.2020 at around 8:00 PM, the applicants forcibly entered the house of the complainant’s daughter, used criminal force with intent to outrage her modesty, physically assaulted her and her sister, and issued threats of dire consequences. It is alleged that the applicants, who are relatives, had previously made unwelcome advances towards the

2024:UHC:6826

daughter of the complainant. When they were resisted, they reacted with physical violence and abuse.

3.Based on the FIR, the police conducted an investigation, recorded the statements of the complainant and the victims under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, and submitted charge-sheet against both applicants under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506, and 452 IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on 22.01.2021 and issued summons to the applicants. the statements of the complainant and the victims under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, and submitted charge-sheet against both applicants under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506, and 452 IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on 22.01.2021 and issued summons to the applicants.

4.Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the FIR is false and has been lodged by the complainant as counterblast to previous complaint lodged by the applicants themselves. It is submitted that property dispute exists between the parties, and the instant FIR is motivated by malice and filed only to harass the applicants. and has been lodged by the complainant as counterblast to previous complaint lodged by the applicants themselves. It is submitted that property dispute exists between the parties, and the instant FIR is motivated by malice and filed only to harass the applicants.

5.It is further argued that no offence under Section 354 IPC is made out as there is no specific overt act attributed to either of the applicants, indicating any intent to outrage the modesty of the complainant’s daughter. The learned counsel submits that even if the allegations are accepted as true, they do not satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged. out as there is no specific overt act attributed to either of the applicants, indicating any intent to outrage the modesty of the complainant’s daughter. The learned counsel submits that even if the allegations are accepted as true, they do not satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged.

6.Reliance has been placed on various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to argue that criminal proceedings which are manifestly attended with mala fide intent or instituted for oblique purposes ought to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. Supreme Court to argue that criminal proceedings which are manifestly attended with mala fide intent or instituted for oblique purposes ought to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

7.Per contra, learned State Counsel, assisted by counsel for the complainant, opposes the application and submits that the FIR discloses specific allegations of criminal force and sexual assault. It is pointed out that the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC complainant, opposes the application and submits that the FIR discloses specific allegations of criminal force and sexual assault. It is pointed out that the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC

2024:UHC:6826

corroborate the allegations, and the charge-sheet was submitted after due investigation.

8.It is argued that the offence under Section 354 IPC is made out in light of the victim's statement that the accused tried to touch her inappropriately and used threatening and abusive language inside her house, which was entered without permission. light of the victim's statement that the accused tried to touch her inappropriately and used threatening and abusive language inside her house, which was entered without permission.

9.It is submitted that the defence of prior enmity and counter-FIR cannot be grounds for quashing the proceedings at this stage. After examining the material, the trial court has already taken cognizance, and the allegations are specific, not vague or bald. Hence, the application deserves to be dismissed. cannot be grounds for quashing the proceedings at this stage. After examining the material, the trial court has already taken cognizance, and the allegations are specific, not vague or bald. Hence, the application deserves to be dismissed.

10.Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

11. The principal contention raised on behalf of the applicants is that the present FIR is actuated by malice and is nothing but counterblast to earlier disputes between the parties. The applicants have also sought to assail the maintainability of the proceedings on the ground that the ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly Section 354 IPC, are not made out even if the averments in the FIR are taken at face value. the present FIR is actuated by malice and is nothing but counterblast to earlier disputes between the parties. The applicants have also sought to assail the maintainability of the proceedings on the ground that the ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly Section 354 IPC, are not made out even if the averments in the FIR are taken at face value.

12.At the outset, it must be noted that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. The parameters for such exercise have been delineated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, where seven illustrative categories were identified in which High Court may interfere. However, it was equally emphasized that such interference is not warranted when the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose prima facie commission of an offence. Court under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution. The parameters for such exercise have been delineated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, where seven illustrative categories were identified in which High Court may interfere. However, it was equally emphasized that such interference is not warranted when the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose prima facie commission of an offence.13.In the present case, the FIR categorically alleges that the applicants forcibly entered the house of the complainant’s daughter and applicants forcibly entered the house of the complainant’s daughter and

2024:UHC:6826

subjected her to physical assault and sexual intimidation. These allegations are not vague or generalised; they contain specific references to the date, time, and place of occurrence, the role played by each accused, and the nature of the assault. These allegations have been corroborated by statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, forming part of the charge-sheet. The medical evidence supports the claim of physical assault.

14.The submission that the FIR was lodged due to prior animosity or pending civil dispute cannot, by itself, be ground to quash the proceedings. The existence of enmity may indeed give rise to motive for false implication, but it equally constitutes motive for the commission of the offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rupesh Paul v. State of Assam, (2022) 7 SCC 509, has clarified that prior enmity is double-edged sword and cannot be conclusively relied upon in quashing proceedings.

15.It is also settled principle, reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 116, that at the stage of considering an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Court is not to embark upon meticulous appreciation of evidence or assess the probability of conviction. The test is whether the allegations, if accepted in their entirety, constitute an offence. The Court is not required to weigh the defence evidence or evaluate exculpatory material. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 6 SCC 116, that at the stage of considering an application under Section 482 CrPC, the Court is not to embark upon meticulous appreciation of evidence or assess the probability of conviction. The test is whether the allegations, if accepted in their entirety, constitute an offence. The Court is not required to weigh the defence evidence or evaluate exculpatory material.

16.The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the charge-sheet after applying judicial mind to the materials presented by the investigating officer. The summoning order dated 22.01.2021 reflects proper application of mind and does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect. There is no abuse of process or miscarriage of justice shown on the part of the investigating agency or the learned trial court. after applying judicial mind to the materials presented by the investigating officer. The summoning order dated 22.01.2021 reflects proper application of mind and does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect. There is no abuse of process or miscarriage of justice shown on the part of the investigating agency or the learned trial court.

2024:UHC:6826

As held in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460,

where the charge-sheet is supported by material collected during investigation and the allegations disclose the essential ingredients of the offence, the High Court must refrain from interfering under Section 482 CrPC merely because the accused disputes the veracity of those allegations or pleads probable defence. Such issues are within the exclusive domain of the trial court.

ORDER

In view of the foregoing discussion and settled legal

principles, 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 stands dismissed.

(Ashish Naithani J.)

Dated:05.06.2025

Digitally signed by NITESH RAWAT NR/ DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, NITESH 2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e401cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897BCDC0B6567DCE4B7108B324FFEDRAWAT3C8A159F3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT Date: 2025.06.21 11:46:45 +05'30'