HITESH VERMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(SC)-2020-11-17
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: UTTARAKHAND)
Decided on November 05,2020

HITESH VERMA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KHUMAN SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
SWARAN SINGH VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
GORIGE PENTALAH VS. STATE OF A P [REFERRED TO]
ASHABAI MACHINDRA ADHAGALE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SAYYAD RAHIM SAYYAD MAHEBOOB VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-6-98] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-237] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-95] [REFERRED TO]
XXX VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-6-67] [REFERRED TO]
ANUSUYA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-4-76] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMILA S.N. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-94] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA BALLAM TIWARY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
JAI KARAN @ PAPPU VS. STATE OF U.P [LAWS(ALL)-2021-11-99] [REFERRED TO]
PURAN CHAND GUPTA VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2022-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRAPURI LADHUPURI GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-379] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNISH MISHRA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-1-90] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR CHANDRA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-11-63] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2021-1-131] [REFERRED TO]
JAIPAL BATHAM VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-41] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAWATAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-65] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASHEKAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-2-114] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION BOARD VS. SATYA PRAKASH GAUTAM [LAWS(DLH)-2021-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL LAL YADAV VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-1-192] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI VITHAL KHARVA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-12-78] [REFERRED TO]
KEISHAM MEGHACHANDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2021-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
G.P. HEMAKOTI REDDY VS. P.P. HYDRABAD [LAWS(APH)-2022-4-89] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAPBHAI JILUBHAI PATGIR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-12-77] [REFERRED TO]
LADUBEN JAYDEVBHAI BRAHMAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-541] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR NAMDEO GAIKWAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-9-170] [REFERRED TO]
SK. AKBAR SK. BISMILLAH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-154] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
NITIN SHARMA ALIAS NITIN KAPIL VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2021-11-91] [REFERRED TO]
HUSENSAB VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-7-58] [REFERRED TO]
DR. PREMSHANKAR VIDYADHAR BHATT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-54] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2022-8-18] [REFERRED TO]
K. KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-200] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-2-334] [REFERRED TO]
INDRAJIT DILIP PATIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY PRASAD VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-6-51] [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD DARADE, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA @ DURGA KULDEEP VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-2-105] [REFERRED TO]
PECHETI RANGA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
PADAMSINH AMBALAL PADHIYAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-396] [REFERRED TO]
K.S. VISHWA KIRAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-6-285] [REFERRED TO]
RITHESH PAIS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-6-433] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.)The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital on 20.7.2020 whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[1] for quashing the charge-sheet as well as the summoning order dated 25.6.2020 was dismissed.
[1] For short, the 'Code'

(2.)The FIR No. 173 in question was lodged by the respondent No. 2 on 11.12.2019 at 23:24 hours in respect of an incident alleged to have occurred on 10.12.2019 at 10:00 hours against the appellants and others. The FIR was lodged for the offences under Sections 452, 504, 506 and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(e) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989[2]. The said FIR, when translated, reads as under:
"Respected SHO with respect of registering of FIR, the complainant is presently resident of Gram New Bajeti Patti Chandak Tehsil and District Pithoragarh. I am constructing my house on my Khet No. 6195, 6196 and 6199 but Banshilal, Pyarelal S/o Late Har Lal, Hitesh Verma S/o Sh. Pyarelal, Pawan Verma S/o Banshilal, Uma Verma w/o Pyarelal and their Nepali Domestic help Raju from past 6 months are not allowing the applicant to work on her fields. All the above persons used to abuse the applicant her husband and other family members and use to give death threats and use Caste coloured abuses. On 10.12.2019 at around 10 am, all these persons entered illegally in to four walls of her building and started hurling abuses on myself and my labourers and gave death threats and used castes' remarks/abuses and took away the construction material such as Cement, Iron, Rod, Bricks. The Applicant is a Scheduled Caste and all of the above person uses castes' remarks/abuses (used bad language) and said that you are persons of bad caste and that we will not let you live in this mohalla/vicinity. Respect Sir, the applicant and her family has threat to her life from such persons. Thus, it is requested that an FIR may be lodged against such persons and necessary action may be taken against them....."

[2] For short, "the Act".

(3.)Pursuant to the FIR filed by Respondent No. 2, Police filed a report disclosing offences under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, cognizance for the same was taken by the Trial Court on 25.6.2020. It is the said order which was challenged along with the charge-sheet before the High Court, which was unsuccessful.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.