IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.188 of 2007 (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Vikas Bhandari ………. Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ..…. Opposite Parties Dated: October 21, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Mr. Sandeep Tandon and Mr. Ravinder Bisht, Advocates are present for the applicant while Mr. P.S. Bohra, Brief Holder is present for the State/opposite party no.1. None turns up on behalf of Smt. Ranjeeta- opposite party no.2. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that this is a matrimonial dispute wherein the marriage between the applicant Vikas Bhandari and opposite party no.2-Smt. Ranjeeta was solemnized on 8.7.2003 at Delhi as per Hindu rituals and within three years of marriage, matrimonial differences cropped up between the two. No issue could be born out of the said wedlock. Both the parties have filed the matrimonial litigations in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, which went up to the level of the High Court. On dated 5.10.2010, both the parties were personally present before the High Court of Delhi and agreed to withdraw the cases filed against each other. Before the Delhi High Court, opposite party no.2-Smt. Ranjeeta agreed to give full cooperation in getting the FIR quashed, which was lodged by her against her husband (Vikas Bhandari) under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. Consequent to that FIR, the instant chargesheet has been filed which is in question before this Court. Now, under the mutual settlement deed, drafted between the parties on 20.10.2010, matrimonial 2 relations between the two have annulled under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the settlement deed, vide paragraph 4(e) it was settled that “the first party/husband shall file petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital for quashing the FIR No.284 of 2006 dated 9.10.2006 under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC, P.S. Cantt. (Garhi) at Dehradun, Uttarakhand by way of joint petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.” It was also settled that the wife Smt. Ranjeeta will not pursue any litigation against her husband and will give full cooperation in getting the FIR quashed, which was filed by her against her husband under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC. The judgment of Divorce is annexed as Annexure RA4 to the rejoinder affidavit. So, in view of the above circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned order dated 23.1.2007 as well as the proceedings of criminal case no.225 of 2007, State Vs. Vikas Bhandari U/s 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC r/w Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also the chargesheet submitted by P.S. Cantt, Dehradun in case crime no.220 of 2006, numbering the criminal case no.225/2007, are hereby quashed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 21.10.2011 Rajeev Dang 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.651 of 2009 (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Dr. D.N. Yadav ………. Applicant Versus Hem Chandra Chaudhary ..…. Opposite Party Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the applicant Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the opposite party Dated: October 17, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this criminal miscellaneous application moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been made to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no.134 of 2009, Hem Chandra Chaudhary Vs. Daleep Singh and another pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet, District Almora. In the said complaint case, the order of cognizance dated 4.8.2009 was passed for the offence of Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, asking the accused Daleep Singh Bisht and Dr. D.N. Yadav (petitioner) to stand for trial. The prayer has also been made to quash the said order of cognizance. The background facts in the pivot of the entire controversy are that opposite party-Hem Chandra Chaudhary is the elected vice president of the Cantonment Board, Ranikhet while the petitioner is the Defence Estate Officer, Bareilly Circle, Bareilly Cantt. and Sri Daleep Singh Bisht is the Junior Engineer of the Cantonment Board posted at Ranikhet. This Bareilly Cantonment covers the military area of Ranikhet. On the fateful day of incident dated 29.10.2008, the Principal Director, Defence Estate, Central Command, Lucknow was on inspection at Ranikhet Cantt. accompanied by petitioner Dr. D.N. Yadav, Defence Estate Officer, Bareilly. They along with Daleep Singh Bisht went for the inspection of 4 Ashiyana Park situated in Cantt. area. Meanwhile, Hem Chandra Chaudhary came there and began to insult the Principal Director impeding in his inspection work. He went to the extent of dragging the Director (would be a very senior commissioned officer of the Army) and began to assault him. Sri Daleep Singh Bisht and petitioner Dr. D.N. Yadav naturally had to rush up for the rescue of Principal Director and in that course, they suffered serious injuries. Hem Chandra Chaudhary tore the clothes of Sri Daleep Singh Bisht and threatened to kill him in future. Taking the recourse of law, Daleep Singh Bisht lodged an FIR in the Cantt. police station which bore the crime no.936/2008 against Hem Chandra Chaudhary. The same was lodged for the offence of Sections 323, 325 and 506 IPC, wherein after investigation, a chargesheet no.16 of 2008 was submitted by police on 24.11.2008. This chargesheet was challenged before this Court by filing a criminal miscellaneous application no.922 of 2010 by Hem Chandra Chaudhary, but the same was dismissed on merits by the Court on 27.9.2010. The order of dismissal is annexure as annexure 3 to the counter affidavit filed by Hem Chandra Chaudhary. On the other hand, Hem Chandra Chaudhary also lodged a cross-FIR No.43/2008 bearing crime no.937/2008 on the same day against Sri Daleep Singh Bisht and Dr. D.N. Yadav, making counter allegations of assault upon his body by the accused persons. The FIR was registered for the offence of Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and after the investigation, the same was resulted in submission of the final report no.06 of 2008 on dated 19.12.2008. Feeling aggrieved by submission of the final report, Hem Chandra Chaudhary filed a complaint on 21.4.2009 protesting the submission of the final report. In the said complaint also, he got his statement recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. on 7.5.2009 and his witnesses Manish Chaudhary 5 (son of the complainant) on 18.5.2009 and Sri Sandeep Pathak S/o Chandra Shekhar Pathak on 18.5.2009 as well. The learned Magistrate, after perusing the contents of the complaint as well as the statements of witnesses, passed the order of cognizance dated 4.8.2009 for the offence of Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC against Daleep Singh Bisht and Dr. D.N. Yadav (petitioner). The said order of cognizance is under challenge in this petition by Dr. D.N. Yadav only while Daleep Singh Bisht has not challenged the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner apprised this Court that the witness Manish Chaudhary is the son of the complainant while the second witness Sandeep Pathak has nourished the serious grouse against the petitioner Dr. D.N. Yadav for the reason that the allotment of Shop No.137, which was made temporarily in the Cantt. region, was cancelled because of several irregularities and encroachment of excessive area by him under the garb of that allotment and that cancellation order is annexed as annexure 26 to the petition. That apart, an order was further made against him on 20.10.2005 by petitioner to remove the encroachment or otherwise face the legal action. These orders of 20.10.2005 and then on 29.10.2005 irked Mr. Sandeep Pathak to render the statement u/s 202 Cr.P.C. to implicate Daleep Singh Bisht and Dr. D.N. Yadav. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the cross FIR no.43/2008 was lodged by Hem Chandra Chaudhary just to mount a pressure and to pre-empt as a counterblast of a genuine FIR lodged by Daleep Singh Bisht against Hem Chandra Chaudhary. He has also contended that on account of the assault extended by Sri Hem Chandra Chaudhary, Dr. D.N. Yadav suffered grievous injuries and he 6 had to rush up right from Bareilly Hospitals to the All India Institute of Medical Science and Sri Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, which are the top hospitals of the country, the report whereof have also been annexed with the petition. Hearing all the pros and cons of the case, this Court agrees with the contentions forwarded by learned counsel for the petitioner and is of the view that firstly, the cross FIR, which met with the fate of submission of final report and then filing of a complaint by Sri Chaudhary is nothing but just to pre-empt the trial which he has to face on account of dismissal of his petition no.922 of 2010 by this Court and on the basis of such a complaint, neither the petitioner Dr. D.N. Yadav nor Sri Daleep Singh Bisht can be forced to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial in the trial court. This way, the petition has merits and deserves to be allowed. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. The proceedings of complaint case no.134 of 2009, titled above, and the order of cognizance dated 4.8.2009 passed thereupon by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet against the petitioner Dr. D.N. Yadav and Junior Engineer Daleep Singh Bisht, are hereby quashed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 17.10.2011 Rajeev Dang