A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sanjay Karol allowed an appeal filed by one Naushad Ahmad Ansari, who questioned the validity of the Uttarakhand High Court's order, quashing the proceedings against the accused in an abduction case, even though the previously similar petition was dismissed and the apex court also declined to interfere with that order.

 

The appellant-complainant was aggrieved with the High Court's order of March 15, 2019, which allowed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 365/511 and 506 Indian Penal Code against Wajahat Ansari.

 

As per the facts, the appellant was allegedly attempted to be abducted by the accused. He somehow escaped and then took recourse to the law. He got registered an FIR at the Chowki Bidal, Kantgarhi Police Station on February 19, 2001.

 

The accused-respondent filed writ petition in 2001 which was dismissed by an order of May 18, 2004, for want of prosecution.

Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed on May 17, 2002.

 

A criminal miscellaneous application was filed in 2003 under Section 482, CrPC, seeking quashing of said chargesheet. By an order of August 14, 2007, this was dismissed. A special leave petition there against was preferred, which was dismissed as withdrawn by order of September 6, 2013.

 

On December 21, 2013, a petition was filed seeking quashing of order of June 4, 2004 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun framed charges against the accused-respondent, which was allowed by the High Court.

 

The High Court found no specific allegations had been made against the accused-respondent and neither had any motive been disclosed. It also observed that the accused-respondent was a lawyer in Delhi. The High Court set aside the trial court's order holding that it was passed in a cursory manner.

 

After hearing the counsel, the bench noted it was a matter of record that a previous petition under Section 482 CrPC stood dismissed and an appeal against such dismissal to the top court, was also dismissed.

 

"The law on this point is well settled. The dismissal of a previous petition under Section 482 CrPC does not bar a subsequent petition, under the said Section from being entertained, if the facts so justify," the bench said, citing Vinod Kumar Vs Union of India, (2021) and Supdt and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs Mohan Singh.

 

In the case, the court pointed out, the record was 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 the top court.

 

"It (the petition) 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 court," the bench said.

 

Considering the attending facts and circumstances of the case, the bench quashed and set aside the judgment and revived the proceedings against the accused-respondent.

 

The court directed that the trial to proceed on a day-to-day basis once it begins in view of the fact that the incident and initial proceedings were almost two decades old.

 

The bench asked the apex court's registry to transmit a copy of the order to the Registrar General, High Court of Uttarakhand, who is to ensure its passage to the concerned court.

 

The court directed the accused respondent to appear before the trial court on March 5, 2025.