Uttarakhand High Court
Usman Ali And Ors. ......Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 19 September, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
1
Judgment reserved on: 03.07.2025
Judgment delivered on: 19.09.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.2059 of 2023
Usman Ali and Ors. ......Applicants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents
With
Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.766 of 2022
Mahboob ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:
Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned D.A.G. with Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent No.1.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per) Since common question of law and facts are involved in these C482 applications, hence, they are being taken up together and are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts of C482 No.2059 of 2023 are taken into consideration alone.
2. By means for these C482 applications, the applicants have put to challenge the impugned order dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.2022 of 2017 Ajruddin Vs. Mahboob and Ors., under Sections 323, 325, 504, 341 IPC against applicants-Usman Ali, Mahboob and under Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC against the applicants-Ayyub Ali, Bhura @ Khurshid, Manful as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid Criminal Case.
23. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2-Ajruddin lodged a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC on 12.05.2015 alleging incidents of assault by the applicants and co-accused persons. Accordingly to the complaint, on 20.08.2014 at about 05:00 PM, a quarrel took place between the complainant and co- accused Mahboob regarding a Mobile Phone that had been given for repair. It is alleged that Mahboob abused and threatened the respondent No.2 and along with the applicants assaulted him with sticks and issued threats of dire consequences, if he reported the matter to the police. Respondent No.2 claimed that he sustained multiple injuries, including a fracture in his left hand. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged nearly nine months later on 12.05.2015. During the course of proceedings, under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the complainant reiterated his allegations. On 31.03.2018, learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Haridwear took cognizance and summoned the applicants-Usman Ali, Mahboob under Sections 323, 325, 504, 341 IPC and the applicants-Ayyub Ali, Bhura @ Khurshid, Manfulunder Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC, for trial. Hence, the applicants are before this Court by challenging the said order dated 31.03.2018.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argues that the entire complaint is false and based on concocted facts. The complaint was filed after a delay of nine months. He further argues that the summoning order dated 31.03.2018 was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III in a routine and mechanical manner without properly investigating the material on record.
35. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the complaint is highly doubtful, as the alleged incident took place on 20.08.2014, yet the complaint was filed after nearly one year i.e. on 12.05.2015, without any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay. He further contends that the statements of respondent No.2 are inconsistent, while in the complaint respondent No.2 alleged that the applicants attempted to strangle him, but, during his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., he stated that it was one co-accused named Asma who attempted strangulation. These self-contradictory versions make the prosecution story unreliable.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the statement of PW1-Tanveer, CW2-Waseem and complainant/respondent No.2 are contradictory. PW1 and CW2 stated that the co-accused Asma attempted to beat the respondent No.2-complainant with a stick, whereas, respondent No.2 alleged that she tried to strangulate him. These contradictions, despite all witnesses claiming to have seen the same incident, shake the foundation of the prosecution case. He also submits that though the complainant alleges that many people gathered and rescued him, not a single independent person from the crowd, has been examined.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the injuries sustained by the respondent No.2 are not grievous in nature and have been deliberately exaggerated to falsely implicate the applicants and was given undue gravity to the incident. It is further contended by him that the respondent No.2 also alleged a second incident again on 27.04.2015 and regarding this he also lodged a complaint belatedly on 12.05.2015, after 15 days. Such conduct again created doubt about the genuineness 4 of the allegations. It is also contended by him that the complaint is an afterthought, lodged with embellishments and exaggerations only to harass the applicants and settle the personal scores, and therefore, deserves to be quashed.
8. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the Investigating Officer after due and proper investigation and only after recording the statements of witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. issued processes and the learned Judicial Magistrate-III thereafter rightly took cognizance of the matter upon being satisfied that a prima- facie case was made out against the applicants.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire documents available on record, this Court finds that these applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are devoid of merit. It is not disputed that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging that he was assaulted by the applicants and others, resulting in injuries including a fracture. The complaint was supported by a medical examination and further statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the said material, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences as stated above and issued summons against the applicants. The principle contention of the applicants is that the complaint suffers from unexplained delay, contradictory statements, lack of independent witnesses, and has been filed with an intention to falsely implicate them. While these arguments may be relevant for the purposes of trial, they do not render the complaint inherently, improbable or incapable of constituting an offence.
10. It is well settled that at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the learned Court is required only to see whether the allegations, taken at face value, make out a 5 prima-facie case, and since the present matter consists of multiple sets of disputed facts, which can only be settled before the learned Trial Court only after a proper trial. Thus, this Court does not find it necessary to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
11. This Court further finds that the impugned order dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be mechanical or without application of mind, as the order is based on the complaint, medical evidence and statements recording during enquiry.
12. In view of the above, no case for quashing of the proceedings is made out. These C482 applications are accordingly dismissed.
13. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 19.09.2025 PN PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f027 NEGI 6c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84B DB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.09.19 16:10:49 +05'30'