Uttarakhand High Court
Jogendra Singh & Ors ……Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand And Anr on 11 July, 2025
2025:UHC:6003
Reserved on:20.06.2025
Delivered on:11.07.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc.Application No.147 of 2019
Jogendra Singh & Ors ......Applicants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Anr. .....Respondent
Presence:
Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal,
learned counsel for the Applicants.
Mr. Girish Ch. Joshi, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand/1.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the entire proceedings
of Criminal Case No. 415 of 2018, State v. Jogendra Singh and Others,
pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District
Udham Singh Nagar. The Applicants also challenge the charge-sheet
dated 16.09.2016 and the summoning order dated 16.03.2018 passed in
connection with FIR No. 204 of 2016, Police Station Bazpur, District
Udham Singh Nagar, registered under Sections 379, 411, 341, 353, 147,
148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 26 of the Indian
Forest Act, 1927.
2. The Applicants are three in number. Applicant No. 1, Shri
Jogendra Singh, is stated to be 75 years of age. Applicants No. 2 and 3,
namely Ranveer Singh and Harpal Singh, are his sons, aged
approximately 43 years each. All three are residents of Village Itabba,
Police Station Bazpur.
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 147 of 2019, Jogendra Singh & Ors Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6003
3. As per FIR, on 14 July 2016, a team of forest officials engaged in
anti-mining enforcement intercepted a tractor transporting forest
produce in violation of forest regulations. It is alleged that the driver of
the vehicle abandoned the same and fled from the scene. The forest
team secured the vehicle and stationed it near a stone crusher site for
further proceedings.
4. It is further alleged that shortly thereafter, a group of individuals,
including the present Applicants, arrived at the location and forcibly
retrieved the said vehicle from the custody of the forest officials. The
group is also alleged to have restrained the forest team and obstructed
them from discharging their official duties. On the basis of this
incident, the aforementioned FIR was registered.
5. The investigation concluded with the filing of a charge-sheet
dated 16 September 2016, wherein the Applicants were arrayed as
accused. Upon receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned Judicial
Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the Applicants to face trial.
6. Before the filing of the charge-sheet, two writ petitions were
instituted before this Court, one by Applicant No. 1, and the other by
Applicants No. 2 and 3, seeking protection against arrest. These
petitions were disposed of by orders dated 20.07.2016 and 09.08.2016,
respectively.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that the
criminal proceedings are an abuse of the process of law. It was
contended that the vehicle in question neither belongs to the Applicants
nor do they have any relationship with its driver. It was urged that the
Applicants were not present at the site of the occurrence and had been
falsely implicated due to departmental overreach or local animosity.
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 147 of 2019, Jogendra Singh & Ors Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6003
8. It was argued that the investigation was carried out in a
mechanical and biased manner. No material, documentary or otherwise,
has been collected to demonstrate the Applicants' presence at the scene
or their involvement in the incident. It was also submitted that there is
no recovery from the Applicants, nor any eyewitness account linking
them to the act of theft, obstruction, or wrongful restraint.
9. It was further contended that the allegations are vague and do not
disclose any specific role played by the individual Applicants. The
ingredients of the offences alleged are, according to the Applicants, not
establishedbased on the facts on record. It was also pointed out that the
summoning order was passed in a mechanical manner without due
application of mind.
10. Learned counsel also submitted that Applicant No. 1 is a senior
citizen with no criminal antecedents and that the other two Applicants
are law-abiding individuals with independent livelihoods. According to
the Applicants, the proceedings are motivated and are intended to
harass them.
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that
the Applicants have been named in the First Information Report and
their involvement in the alleged incident is supported by consistent
statements of several witnesses recorded during the investigation. It
was pointed out that members of the forest enforcement team and other
public officials have identified the Applicants and described the
sequence of events in detail.
12. It was further submitted that the location from which the vehicle
was recovered and where the obstruction allegedly took place belongs
to or is under the control of the Applicants. According to the State, the
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 147 of 2019, Jogendra Singh & Ors Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6003
Government officials were wrongfully restrained at the premises of a
stone crusher associated with the Applicants.
13. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the materials
collected during the investigation are sufficient to establish a prima
facie case. The summoning order, it was urged, is based on application
of mind to the contents of the charge-sheet and the supporting
materials. It was argued that no interference is warranted under Section
482 CrPC at this stage, as the Applicants have not demonstrated that
the proceedings fall within any of the categories enumerated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335.
14. It was also contended that the issues raised by the Applicants are
factual in nature and require adjudication upon evidence. The power
under Section 482 is not intended to be exercised where factual
disputes arise, particularly when the prosecution's version is supported
by statements of public servants acting in discharge of their official
duties.
15. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.
16. The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. It is primarily intended to
prevent abuse of the court process or to secure the ends of justice.
However, it is well settled that this provision cannot be invoked to
conduct a mini-trial or to examine the correctness of allegations at a
preliminary stage. The test is whether, assuming the allegations on
record to be true, the same disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence warranting prosecution.
17. The primary contention of learned counsel for the Applicants is
that they were not present at the scene, have no connection with the
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 147 of 2019, Jogendra Singh & Ors Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6003
offending vehicle, and have been falsely implicated. It is submitted that
the investigation was one-sided, no recovery was made, and the
Applicants have been implicated without any reliable evidence.
18. This Court is of the view that the contentions raised by the
Applicants relate essentially to disputed questions of fact. The version
put forth by them is in the nature of a defence, which requires
appreciation of evidence and cannot be tested at this stage. Whether the
Applicants were present at the scene and whether they participated in
the alleged obstruction are matters that fall within the scope of the trial.
The Court, at this stage, cannot adjudicate on the veracity of such
claims.
19. This Court also finds that the allegations made in the FIR, when
read with the charge-sheet and accompanying statements, prima facie
disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged. The materials on record
indicate that the investigating agency did not proceed solely on the
strength of the FIR but also collected statements of the eyewitnesses,
all of whom were public servants performing their duties on the day in
question. The presence of consistent witness accounts lends weight to
the prosecution's version, at least for the limited purpose of taking
cognizance.
20. It is well settled that if the materials collected by the police, taken
at face value, disclose a cognizable offence, the High Court should be
slow in interfering. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC
460, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even where the chances of
conviction are uncertain, proceedings should not be quashed if the basic
allegations disclose the commission of an offence. Similarly, in Zandu
Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC
122, the Court cautioned against stifling a legitimate prosecution by
premature interference.
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 147 of 2019, Jogendra Singh & Ors Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6003
21. As regards the argument that the summoning order is mechanical
or passed without application of mind, this Court finds no merit in the
submission. The order reflects that the Magistrate applied judicial mind
to the material placed on record, and the offences alleged are clearly
cognizable and triable by the Magistrate concerned. At the stage of
summoning, a detailed, reasoned order is not required.
22. It was also contended that the allegations are vague and no
specific overt act has been attributed to each applicant. However, this
Court finds that in cases alleging obstruction of public officials by a
group of persons, the requirement is not to pinpoint individual actions
but to establish an unlawful assembly with a common object. The
question of whether the Applicants shared such an object or
participated in its furtherance is again a matter to be decided based on
evidence.
23. This Court is also conscious of the nature of allegations in the
present case. The incident pertains to interference with enforcement
activity undertaken by government officials in the context of forest
protection. The State's case, if ultimately found to be true, would
involve obstruction of a lawful public duty and recovery of state-
controlled property. Such allegations are not private or minor in nature
and must be tested in a trial before the competent court.
24. In light of the discussion above, this Court is of the considered
view that the materials on record are not so deficient or inherently
improbable as to warrant quashing of proceedings at this stage. The
Applicants will have the full opportunity to contest the prosecution's
case and to demonstrate their innocence during the trial. However, the
grounds urged do not justify the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code for premature termination of proceedings.
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 147 of 2019, Jogendra Singh & Ors Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:6003
ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any
ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands
dismissed.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Dated:11.07.2025
NITESH
Digitally signed by NITESH RAWAT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea
4758e401cf436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001,
RAWAT
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E89897BCDC0B6567DCE4B
7108B324FFED3C8A159F3BDD03C, cn=NITESH RAWAT
Date: 2025.07.11 12:00:01 +05’30’
7
Criminal Misc. Application No. 147 of 2019, Jogendra Singh & Ors Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr
Ashish Naithani J.