[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
Ravindra Singh Rawat vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 9 June, 2025
2025:UHC:5292
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No. 1725 of 2021
Ravindra Singh Rawat ......Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others .....Respondents
Presence:
Ms. Soniya Chawla, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the
summoning/cognizance order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Vth), Dehradun in Criminal Case
No. 1751 of 2021 titled "State Vs. Ravindra Rawat" for offences
punishable under Sections 354(d), 504, 507, and 509 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
2. The Applicant, Ravindra Singh Rawat, joined the Indo-Tibetan Border
Police as a constable on 07.12.2011 and worked as a Head Constable. On
09.05.2020, one Smt. Sonal Sailal lodged an FIR bearing Crime No.
166/2020 at Police Station Nehru Colony, Dehradun under Sections
354(d), 504, 507, and 509 IPC against an unknown mobile holder for
making vulgar calls.
3. During the investigation, it was discovered that the Applicant was using
the mobile number used for making the alleged calls. The Senior
Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, informed the Deputy Inspector
1
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No. 1725 of 2021-----Ravindra Singh Rawat vs State of Uttarakhand
and Others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5292
General (Personnel & Administration), Northern FTR, ITBP, about the
case registration through a letter dated 28.05.2020.
4. Under this information, vide order dated 13.08.2020, Shri Yashpal Singh,
DC/Telecom SH, was appointed as enquiry officer by the Deputy
Inspector General, ITBP. The Applicant appeared before the enquiry
officer on 19.08.2020 and presented his case.
5. After a preliminary hearing on 23.10.2020, summary proceedings were
conducted on 27.10.2020, and the Applicant was awarded punishment
under Section 56(1)(h) of the ITBP Act, 1992 for violation of good order
and discipline under Section 43 of the ITBP Act.
6. Subsequently, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet dated
19.11.2020 under Sections 354(d), 504, 507, and 509 IPC against the
Applicant. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Vth),
Dehradun, took cognizance and issued summons to the Applicant vide
order dated 05.03.2021.
7. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has
already been punished under Section 56(1)(h) of the ITBP Act for the
same facts. Therefore, Section 87(2) of the ITBP Act creates a specific
statutory bar against further criminal trial. It was emphasized that Section
87(2) explicitly provides that where any person subject to the Act has been
dealt with under Section 56, he shall not be liable to be tried again by a
criminal court for the same offence or on the same facts.
8. It was further argued that the principle of double jeopardy, a fundamental
right under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and a statutory protection
under Section 300 Cr.P.C., squarely applies in the present case. Subjecting
the Applicant to criminal proceedings after departmental punishment
would be legally impermissible and unjust.
9. The counsel also contended that no prior sanction under Section 197 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure was obtained from the Central Government
2
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No. 1725 of 2021-----Ravindra Singh Rawat vs State of Uttarakhand
and Others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5292
before the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. Since the Applicant
is a serving member of the ITBP, the absence of such sanction renders the
cognizance order bad in law and the proceedings void ab initio.
10. In response, the learned Assistant Government Advocate submitted that
the Applicant was punished under the ITBP Act specifically for a
disciplinary breach involving good order and discipline under Section 43,
and not for the offences for which he has been charge-sheeted under the
Indian Penal Code. It was contended that the offences under the IPC are
distinct in nature and attract separate penal consequences.
11. It was further argued that the protection against double jeopardy under
Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 Cr.P.C. applies only
where there has been both a prosecution and a punishment for the same
offence. Since the departmental action taken under the ITBP Act is not
equivalent to a prosecution under criminal law, the bar does not apply.
12. The State also submitted that a proper investigation was conducted, and
that credible and sufficient evidence was collected against the Applicant,
warranting the filing of the charge sheet. After examining the record, it
was contended that the trial court rightly took cognizance of the offences.
13. As to the requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., it was
submitted that such protection is applicable only when the act complained
of was committed while discharging official duties. Since the acts alleged
vulgar calls made to a woman are in no way connected to the official
duties of an ITBP personnel, the question of obtaining prior sanction does
not arise.
14. This Court has carefully examined Section 87(2) of the Indo-Tibetan
Border Police (ITBP) Act, 1992, which states that when any person
subject to the Act has been acquitted or convicted of an offence by a Force
Court or has been dealt with under Section 56 or Section 58, he shall not
be liable to be tried again by a criminal court for the same offence or on
3
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No. 1725 of 2021-----Ravindra Singh Rawat vs State of Uttarakhand
and Others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5292
the same facts. A plain reading of this provision reveals an absolute bar
against subsequent criminal prosecution when the person has already been
dealt with under Section 56 for the same incident or underlying facts. In
the present matter, it is not in dispute that the Applicant was punished
under Section 56(1)(h) of the ITBP Act on 27.10.2020 about the same
incident involving the alleged vulgar calls made to the complainant. A
charge sheet was subsequently filed on 19.11.2020 based on the same
facts.
15. The respondents argue that the departmental action under the ITBP Act
pertains to a different offence. In contrast, the criminal proceedings
concerning offences under the IPC are found to be misconceived. Section
87(2) uses the disjunctive expression "same offence or on the same facts",
which clearly indicates that the statutory bar applies not only when the
offence is identical in law but also when the subsequent prosecution is
founded on the same factual substratum. As clarified by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in multiple decisions, the legal position reiterates that
protection against double jeopardy extends to cases where the same set of
facts forms the basis of two separate proceedings, even under different
legal provisions.
16. Insofar as the issue of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is concerned, it is well settled that the provision
protects public servants from vexatious litigation for acts done in the
discharge of their official functions. However, the allegations in the
present case pertain to making vulgar calls to a woman, which by no
stretch of interpretation can be regarded as part of the Applicant's official
duties as a member of the ITBP. Therefore, the requirement of prior
sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. does not arise in the facts of the present
case.
4
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No. 1725 of 2021-----Ravindra Singh Rawat vs State of Uttarakhand
and Others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5292
17. It is also well established that the inherent powers of the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent abuse of process and
to secure the ends of justice. When a statutory bar is created against
prosecution, any continuation of proceedings violating that bar would
amount to abusing the legal process.
18. The Applicant has been dealt with departmentally under the ITBP Act
for the same incident. Yet, he is subjected to a parallel criminal
prosecution on the same factual foundation. Such parallel proceedings are
impermissible given the bar contained in Section 87(2) of the ITBP Act.
19. After considering the facts, the legal position, and the arguments
advanced by both parties, this Court finds that the Applicant, being
governed by the ITBP Act, was already subjected to disciplinary action
under Section 56(1)(h) of the said Act in respect of the same incident.
Section 87(2) provides a clear statutory bar against further prosecution
based on the same facts. The disjunctive language employed in the
provision emphasizes that it is not merely identity of offences but identity
of factual basis that triggers the bar. The departmental proceedings and the
criminal case in the present matter both emanate from the same factual
allegations concerning vulgar phone calls allegedly made by the
Applicant. The legislature's intent in enacting such a provision was to
ensure that ITBP personnel are not subjected to double jeopardy for the
same conduct under different legal regimes. Permitting the continuation of
the criminal case in such circumstances would not only contravene the
statutory protection. Still, it would also result in grave prejudice to the
Applicant and amount to an abuse of judicial process.
20. Though the question of prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not
sustained due to the nature of the alleged misconduct, this issue becomes
academic in light of the more significant statutory protection available
under Section 87(2) of the ITBP Act. The judicial pronouncements of the
5
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No. 1725 of 2021-----Ravindra Singh Rawat vs State of Uttarakhand
and Others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5292
Hon'ble Supreme Court affirm the principle that when a special legislation
confers protection against double jeopardy, the same must be enforced in
its true spirit to prevent miscarriage of justice.
21. Given the foregoing analysis, this Court considers that the continuation
of the criminal proceedings against the Applicant would violate the
statutory bar provided under Section 87(2) of the ITBP Act, 1992, and
amount to abuse of process of law.
ORDER
Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Application is allowed. The
summoning/cognizance order dated 05.03.2021 passed by the Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Vth), Dehradun in Criminal Case No.
1751 of 2021 titled “State Vs. Ravindra Rawat” for offences punishable under
Sections 354(d), 504, 507, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby
quashed and set aside.
Consequently, the criminal proceedings against the Applicant in the
aforementioned case stand quashed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
Dated:09.06.2025
NR/
Digitally signed by NITESH RAWAT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
NITESH
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=bea38a9cb7bca67cc3988ad
93d563d95c70eb77fa0ea4758e401cf
436bdce9fb, postalCode=263001,
RAWAT
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=F691686B3C447434E8
9897BCDC0B6567DCE4B7108B324FF
ED3C8A159F3BDD03C, cn=NITESH
RAWAT
Date: 2025.06.24 11:11:18 +05’30’
6
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION No. 1725 of 2021—–Ravindra Singh Rawat vs State of Uttarakhand
and Others
Ashish Naithani J.
[ad_2]
Source link