Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Naushad Ahmad Ansari vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 12 December, 2024
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Sanjay Karol
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)NO.9111 of 2022)
NAUSHAD AHMAD ANSARI … APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard Ms. S. Janani, learned senior counsel for
the appellant-complainant and learned counsel for
the respondent. Respondent No.2 has been served
but chosen not to appear.
3. The appellant-complainant is aggrieved by the
order dated 15th March, 2019 passed by the High
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal
Revision No.347 of 2013 titled Wajahat Ansari vs.
State of Uttarakhand & Anr., whereby a criminal
revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was allowed and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
the criminal proceedings under Section 365/511 and
SNEHA DAS
Date: 2025.01.09
17:37:01 IST
Reason:
506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 were quashed.
1
4. In short, the facts are that the complainant-
appellant allegedly attempted to be abducted by
accused-respondent No. 2, from which the former
somehow escaped and then took recourse to the law.
FIR No.11/2001 under the above-mentioned Section
was filed at the Chowki Bidal, Kantgarhi Police
Station on 19th February, 2001. The complaint, on
the basis of which the FIR stood registered, reads
as under :
“To Sir, SHO, Police Station Gari Cant Dehradun
Respected Sir it is prayed that today dated
19.2.2001 time 9.00 a.m. when I was working with
computer in my house then a call from outside,
that come out from house when I came out from
house two person which were not known to me
started pulling me by catching my hand. I tried
to free my hand and cried loudly “Bachao”. His
vehicle was standing outside bearing No.DL-3CE-
7239. When persons were trying to sit in the
vehicle then someone was sitting hiding himself in
corner on back seat and as I saw that person, he
was my nephew whose name was Wajahat Afroz @ Guddu
s/o Shri Master Abdul Sattar Ansari R/O Mohalla
Mirdegan, Bijnor, U.P. who has a criminal tendency
and practicing advocate at Delhi as one driver was
also in the vehicle. They threatened to kill me
when they going before this incident yesterday
evening I receipt two unknown phone call to
threaten me that your father will not alive. They
do not disclose their name therefore I am
requesting Sir to lodge my report and kindly take
action against above said persons and providing
security….”
5. The accused-respondent filed Writ Petition
No.837/2001 which was dismissed vide order dated
18th May, 2004 for want of prosecution. Upon
2
completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was
filed on 17th May, 2002.
6. A Criminal Miscellaneous Application, numbered
295/2003 was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of said chargesheet bearing No.28
of 2001. Vide order dated 14th August, 2007, the
same was dismissed. A Special Leave Petition
thereagainst was preferred having particulars
SLP(Crl.)No.157 of 2008 which was dismissed as
withdrawn by order dated 6th September, 2013. On
21st December, 2013, a petition was filed seeking
quashing of order dated 4th June, 2004 by which the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun framed charges
against the accused-respondent. The appellant-
complainant is aggrieved thereby, and thus is
before us.
7. It has been observed by the High Court that no
specific allegations have been made against the
accused-respondent and neither has any motive been
disclosed. It was further observed that the
accused-respondent is a lawyer in Delhi. Holding
that the trial court has passed the order impugned
before the High Court in a cursory manner, the same
3
was set aside.
8. It is a matter of record that a previous petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stood dismissed and an
appeal against such dismissal to this Court, was
also dismissed. The law on this point is well-
settled. The dismissal of a previous petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not bar a subsequent
petition, under the said Section from being
entertained, if the facts so justify. (see Vinod
Kumar v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 559 and
Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Mohan
Singh, (1975) 3 SCC 706) The record is silent as to
which facts persuaded the High Court to exercise
its jurisdiction for a second time when one such
petition already stood dismissed and such order,
confirmed by this Court. It has been treated like
an application coming up at the first instance.
Such an approach is not justified. Perhaps,
primarily what weighed with the Court was that the
private respondent is a practicing lawyer.
Significantly, the said respondent concealed the
factum of trial being in progress subsequent to the
dismissal of the special leave petition by this
4
Court.
9. In the attending facts and circumstances of this
case, the judgment with the particulars as
described in paragraph 1, is quashed and set aside.
The proceedings against the accused-respondent are
revived. Considering the fact that the incident and
initial proceedings are almost two decades old, we
direct that the trial should proceed on a day-to-
day basis once it begins.
10. The Appeal is allowed. The registry is
requested to transmit a copy of this order to the
learned Registrar General, High Court of
Uttarakhand, who shall ensure its passage to the
concerned court. The accused respondent is directed
to appear before the Trial Court on 5th March 2025.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
………………………………………J.
(PANKAJ MITHAL)
……………………………………J.
5
(SANJAY KAROL)
New Delhi;
12th December, 2024.
6
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.16 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9111/2022
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-03-2019
in CRLR No. 347/2013 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital]
NAUSHAD AHMAD ANSARI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 12-12-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROLFor Petitioner(s) Mrs. S. Janani, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sharika Rai, Adv.
Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, AOR
Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Adv.
Mr. Deep Narayan Sarkar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RLeave granted.
The present appeal is allowed in terms of the
signed order which is placed on the file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(SNEHA DAS) (RAM SUBHAG SINGH)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
7