Uttarakhand High Court
Rajvir Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 23 November, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 UTR 582
Author: R.C. Khulbe
Bench: R.C. Khulbe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No1021 of 2014
Rajvir Singh .......Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ....Respondents
Mr. Sandeep Tandon along with Ms. Tejaswina Sagar, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Mr. A.K.Sah, learned D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
By way of present application, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., applicant seeks to quash the impugned order dated 14.07.2014, passed by learned IInd Add. Session Judge Haridwar in criminal revision no. 262 of 2013, Rajvir Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, and the order dated 07.06.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate IInd Roorkee, District Haridwar in criminal case no. 3690 of 2014 (old no. 811 of 2013, 551 of 2011 & 197 of 2011), State vs. Rajvir Singh, under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kaliyar, Roorkee, District Haridwar pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
2. Heard.
3. The respondent no.2 Sandeep Negi filed information at Police Station Kaliyar, Roorkee on 27.01.2011. On the basis of the said information an F.I.R was lodged on the very same day against the applicant Rajvir Singh. After the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and charges were framed. During the course of the trial, the State Government moved an application under Section 321 Cr.P.C for withdrawal of the prosecution case. The 2 concern Magistrate dismissed the said application on 07.06.2013.
4. Aggrieved by it, criminal revision no. 262 of 2013, Rajvir Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, was preferred before the District and Session Judge Haridwar. After hearing the parties, learned IInd Addl. Session Judge dismissed the revision and affirmed the lower court order vide judgement dated 14.07.2014.
5. I have also gone through the impugned orders and found that it was a simple case. The applicant used abusive language against the respondent no.2. There is no medical on record showing that the applicant committed maarpeet with the respondent no.2.
6. The State Government has rightly submitted the application for withdrawal of prosecution case. The learned Magistrate as well as the revisional court did not peruse this fact and both the courts below dismissed the application. The application filed under Section 321 of Cr.P.C is dismissed simply on the basis that there are many cases pending against the applicant, but they did not notice that the applicant was not convicted in any case. In the present matter simply abusive language was used by the applicant against the respondent no.2. Accordingly, the State Government rightly submitted the application for withdrawal of the prosecution. Accordingly, the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C is liable to be allowed.
7. The application filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. is allowed, and the impugned orders dated 14.07.2014, passed by learned IInd Add. Session Judge Haridwar in criminal revision no. 262 of 2013, Rajvir Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, and the order dated 07.06.2013 passed 3 by the learned Judicial Magistrate IInd Roorkee, District Haridwar in criminal case no. 3690 of 2014 (old no. 811 of 2013, 551 of 2011 & 197 of 2011), State vs. Rajvir Singh are hereby set aside, and the entire proceedings of criminal case no.3690 of 2014, State v. Rajveer Singh, pending before the court below are hereby quashed.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 23.11.2020 Nahid