Uttarakhand High Court
Rupin Dang vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 May, 2022
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.680 of 2022
Rupin Dang ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ........... Respondent
Present : Mr. Abhimanshu Dhyani and Mr. Mayank Datta, Advocates for the
petitioner.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 21.02.2022, passed in Criminal Revision No.10 of 2022, Rupin Dang vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, by the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun .
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy briefly stated are as follows. A compliant under Sections 499, 500, 501, 34 and 120-B IPC has been filed against a Vipul Jain. According to the complaint, a suit bearing OS No.133 of 2013 was filed against the petitioner in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun with the 2 allegation that the petitioner assaulted and became violent with Vipin Jain. The complaint is quite in detail. According to the petitioner, the averments made in the civil suit filed by Vipul Jain amounts to commission of offence punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 IPC read with Sections 34, 120-B IPC. The compliant was initially rejected after inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") by the court of Magistrate on 11.01.2022. The order dated 11.01.2022 was challenged by the petitioner in revision. The revision was dismissed on 21.02.2022 by the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order does not assign any reason. The revision has been dismissed with the finding that prima facie the dispute appears to be related to a civil dispute.
5. It is argued that there may be two proceedings together civil as well as criminal. Merely because a dispute is civil, it in all cases does not exclude a criminal proceeding.
3
6. It is also argued that averments made in any judicial proceedings may be basis to file a case for defamation. Such averments in judicial proceedings cannot be termed as absolute privilege of a party.
7. There is no law which, bars a criminal prosecution if a dispute has element of civil dispute, as well.
8. Given set of facts may make out purely a civil wrong or purely a criminal offence or a civil wrong, with the element of criminality. The civil disputes which does not have any element of criminality may not be brought in the arena of criminal justice system.
9. In the instant case, the impugned order does not record any finding, as to whether the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature without any element of criminality. The observation that the dispute is related to a civil matter may not be a ground for non-entertaining a revision. Therefore, the impugned order may not be upheld. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order, the court below may be requested to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law.
4
10. The impugned order dated 21.02.2022 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the court below to decide the revision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
11. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 13.05.2022 Sanjay