Decided on May 06,2013

Rishu Kaushik Appellant
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents


- (1.) By way of present application / petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash and set aside the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 1355 of 2005, captioned as Virendra Sharma vs Sanjay and others, whereby the accused persons, including the present applicant, were summoned to face trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 of IPC, registered at police station Vasant Vihar, District Dehradun by the Court of Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Dehradun.
(2.) A criminal complaint was lodged by Virendra Sharma (respondent no. 2) against Sanjay, Arvind, Kavita Saini and Rishu regarding the offence which occurred on 04.09.2005, at 11:00 A.M., at 145, Balliwalla, Kanwali, Dehradun, within the jurisdiction of police station Vasant Vihar, Dehradun. According to the complainant / respondent no. 2 on 04.09.2005, at 11:00 A.M., accused persons namely, Sanjay, Arvind, Kavita Saini and Rishu Kaushik s/o Mani Ram trespassed into the house of the complainant, hurled abuses at the complainant and when the complainant asked them not to do so, the accused persons beat him with kicks and fists. The said criminal complaint was registered as complaint case no. 1355 of 2005 in the court of Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Dehradun. Statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Evidence of two witnesses namely, Gurudas and Rajendra Singh were recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. After the same, the accused persons were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC. Aggrieved against the said order, present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed by Km. Rishu Kaushik only. Sanjay, Arvind and Kavita were not the applicants in the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. So, this Court is required to focus only on the identity and role assigned to Km. Rishu Kaushik only. Let us see, what was the evidence against her On perusal of the record, it appears that the identity itself of the applicant is under doubt. In the complaint, Rishu Kaushik s/o Mani Ram was arrayed as accused no. 4. When the statement of the complainant Virendra Sharma was recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., he said that Sanjay Saini, Magan Lal Saini, Kavita Saini, Rishu and Arvind trespassed into his house. The gender of accused Rishu was not disclosed, as to whether she was male or female (although in the complaint she was shown to be son of Mani Ram). When Gurudas entered into the witness box, he also depicted Rishu, as if Rishu was a male member of the party, who trespassed into the house of the complainant. So far as the statement of another witness namely, Rajendra Singh was concerned, he said that his eyesight was weak and one Mr. Sharma was quarrelling with complainant Virendra. He said that one person namely Sanjay was standing in the crowd and people were pronouncing his name. In other words, this witness did not name the present applicant Rishu Kaushik as one of the accused persons, who allegedly trespassed into the house of the complainant / respondent no. 2.
(3.) It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab, 1960 AIR(SC) 866 that the following are some categories of cases, where the inherent jurisdiction could and should be exercised: i. Where there was a legal bar against the institution or continuance of proceedings; ii. Where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint did not make out the offence alleged and; iii. Where either there was no legal evidence adduced in respect of the charge from the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly prove the charge.;

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