V K PAINULI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
V K Painuli And Another
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The applicants, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seek to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6500 of 2007, captioned as Khushal Singh Bhandari vs. V.K.Painuli and others, in relation to offences punishable under Sections 147, 504, 506 and 427 IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Dehradun.
(2.) A criminal complaint case was lodged by respondent no. 2 against the present applicants along with B.C.Kandpal (accused no. 3), in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 504, 506 and 427 IPC. It was alleged against the accused persons that on 01.07.2007, at 6:30 p.m., accused persons, namely, V.K.Painuli, Smt. Anita Painuli and B.C.Kandpal along with 10-12 people came to the complainant, caught hold of his collar, ousted him from the house, hurled abuses at him and demolished the wall and the gate of the house of the complainant. The statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of Awadh Bihari and Amit were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Having found prima facie case against the accusedapplicants along with B.C.Kandpal, learned Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Dehradun directed them to be summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 504 and 506 IPC. Aggrieved against the said order, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was preferred.
(3.) While learned counsel for the applicants submitted that it was abuse of process of law (if the applicants were summoned to face the trial), learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that a civil suit was filed by the applicant no. 1 against the opposite party no. 2 for seeking the relief for restraining the respondents from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs-applicants. The said suit was filed on 31.05.1999. In that suit, written statement was filed by the respondent-defendant on 08.09.1999. Learned Civil Judge was pleased to reject the application for temporary injunction application on 01.07.2000. Aggrieved against the said order, the plaintiff-applicants filed the Civil Appeal No. 158 of 2000, in which parties were directed to maintain status quo vide order dated 07.02.2003 of learned Additional District Judge/6th F.T.C. The suit filed by the plaintiff-applicant no. 1 was dismissed in default in the year 2008. The date of the alleged occurrence was 01.07.2007, i.e., after 9 years of filing of civil suit by the plaintiff/applicant no. 1. The complaint was filed on 07.08.2007. The allegations of the respondents with regard to demolition of wall was disclosed in the written statement filed by the respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants also relied upon the rulings of Pepsi Food Ltd. V. Special Judicial Magistrate,1998 5 SCC 760, and Jodh Singh vs. State,1991 AllCriR 309.
Learned counsel for the applicants also assailed the complainant story on the ground, inter alia, as to whether a woman will assault a man This Court, prima facie, agrees with the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that no offence punishable under section 504 IPC is made out against the present applicants, in as much as, the essential ingredients of the said offence were not disclosed in the complaint. The remaining allegations were the allegations of facts. It is the settled law of the land that the factual aspects of the case need not gone into by the High Court in exercise of it's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.