ALOK KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
ALOK KUMAR GUPTA
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. -
(1.) THE applicant, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the summoning order dated 04.02.2010 passed by 4th Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 220 of 2009 titled as Dayanand v. Zakir & others under Sections 500 & 211 IPC. The applicant also seeks to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case pending before the said court.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2/Dayanand Sharma filed a criminal complaint case against 5 accused persons, including the present applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 191, 193, 120 -B IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Haridwar. Respondent No. 2 entered into the witness -box under Section 200 Cr.P.C.. Laal Deen CW1 and Bharat Singh CW2 were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. After considering the statements under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., 5 accused persons, including the applicant were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 500 & 211 I.P.C., vide order dated 04.02.2010. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved only on behalf of one accused, i.e., Alok Kumar Gupta (applicant). Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that upon filing of an FIR by Zakir (accused No. 1 in the complaint) against respondent No. 2(Dayanand Sharma) and 5 others, a chargesheet was submitted. Respondent No. 2 and five others faced the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. They were, however, exonerated of the charges levelled against them vide judgment and order dated 21.02.2009 passed by the 3rd F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 375/2005. It is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that accused -applicant (Alok Kumar Gupta) gave false evidence against respondent No. 2 and others. The prosecution evidence was not believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar and, therefore, he acquitted respondent No. 2 and others. It is also the contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that his reputation was tarnished in the estimation of public and, therefore, the present applicant alongwith others were rightly summoned by the Judicial Magistrate to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant, on the other hand submitted that the applicant (Alok Kumar Gupta) was only a prosecution witness in the aforementioned sessions trial against respondent No. 2 and others. Learned trial court did not say anything against the evidence or the conduct of Alok Kumar Gupta, who was examined as PW5 in the sessions trial. Learned trial court did not indict the applicant for his testimony or said anything adverse against his conduct or cast aspersions on his performance. The trial court simply found that the prosecution could not prove the case against Dayanand Sharma and others and, therefore, acquitted them. No offence under Section 500 IPC was made against the accused -applicant. Learned Judicial Magistrate ought not to have summoned the present applicant under Section 211 IPC in view of the embargo created by Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.