IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1195 of 2017 (Under Section 482 CrPC) Ram Bhool Singh … Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & Anr. … Respondents Mr. Arun Pratap Shah, Advocate, for the applicant Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy AG, for the State. 3.1.2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Applicant’s son is the owner of property situate in 65/68 Old Dalanwala, Raipur Road, Dehradun. Respondent no. 2 (complainant) is a contractor. Applicant’s son and respondent no. 2 entered into a building construction contract and respondent no. 2 completed the construction of building on the said plot. Respondent no. 2 claimed that a sum of rupees twenty one lakhs is due to be paid by applicant’s son. A dispute arose between the parties on this issue. Complainant alleged that applicant and his son called him on their residence on 30.8.2015 for clearing the dues; when he reached there at around 6 o’clock in the evening, applicant and his son quarreled with him, committed marpit with him and snatched the register which contained the details of account; complainant got himself medically examined and thereafter lodged the complaint, which was registered as Non- Cognizable Report (NCR). Thus a case was 2 initiated by way of lodging an NCR. After investigation, police filed the chargesheet and thereafter vide order dated 24.6.2016, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun summoned the accused applicant to face the trial for the offences under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC. Applicant pleaded before the trial court that chargesheet has been filed without obtaining sanction under Section 197 CrPC and thus proceedings against him is barred by Section 197 CrPC. Vide order dated 25.5.2017 passed in Criminal Case No. 2423/2016, CJM, dehradun rejected the said prayer of the applicant. Applicant challenged this order by filing Criminal Revision No. 117 of 2017, which was dismissed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun vide judgment and order dated 11.8.2017. Thus feeling aggrieved, applicant has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash and set aside the aforesaid orders and the chargesheet. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that allegations made against the applicant are false and frivolous and applicant is no way connected to the alleged offence. He further contended that the respondent no. 2 lodged the report against the applicant as a counterblast to the FIR lodged against him by applicant’s wife. 3. Learned State Counsel contended that the present proceedings are not counterblast to any case; disputed questions of 3 fact are involved in the present case and on the basis of allegations made in the report, a prima facie case is made out against the applicant. 4. Perusal of material on record reveals that specific allegations have been made against the accused applicant and after investigation, police also submitted the chargesheet and the trial court summoned the accused applicant to face the trial. I am of the opinion that the allegations made in the complaint, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do prima facie make out a case against the accused applicant. 5. As regards obtaining Sanction under Section 197 CrPC, law is absolutely well settled that the offence alleged must be directly and reasonably connected with official duty to require sanction. It is no part of official duty to commit offence. Hence, prayer of invoking Section 197 CrPC was rightly rejected by the Courts below. 6. Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2013) 9 SCC 293, has observed that in order to determine the veracity of a prayer, for quashing the criminal proceedings, raised by an accused under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court should analyze (i) whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable and indubitable; (ii) whether the material relied upon by the accused is sufficient to reject and 4 overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint; (iii) whether the material relied upon by the accused cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and (iv) whether the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court and hence, would not serve the ends of justice? 7. 7. In my considered opinion, the answer to none of the aforesaid questions is in affirmative and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings by exercising its power under Section 482 CrPC. Consequently, this criminal miscellaneous application is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 8. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court is only for the purpose of deciding the present C482 petition and the same shall not prejudice the trial court while deciding the case on merit. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Pr