The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against an applicant in a special sessions trial, holding that the evidence on record did not disclose any offence against him. The court observed that continuing the case would amount to an abuse of the judicial process.
Background of the Case
The order, passed by Justice Alok Mahra on May 2, pertained to a 2018 criminal case. The matter originated from an FIR lodged in Dehradun by a man reporting his daughter missing. The complaint alleged that accused Nitesh Chauhan had enticed the minor girl away. During investigation, the girl was found at Chauhan’s residence, leading to a chargesheet filed on December 20, 2018. The trial proceedings were subsequently challenged before the High Court.
Arguments Presented
Counsel for the applicant argued that in her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the girl had clearly stated that she left home voluntarily due to differences with her mother and brother. She said she went to Chauhan’s house on September 24, 2018, and stayed there until October 7, 2018, of her own free will, without any inducement, coercion, or force.
Court's Observations
The High Court noted that in her deposition before the trial court, the girl made no allegations against the applicant. On examining the record, the court found no material suggesting wrongful confinement or any act that could attract provisions of the alleged offences. The court emphasised that the victim’s statement and testimony completely exonerated the applicant, with no attribution of inducement, confinement, or participation in the alleged incident.
Conclusion
Holding that the uncontroverted allegations and collected evidence did not establish any offence, the High Court ruled that continuing the proceedings would cause unnecessary harassment and amount to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, it quashed the entire trial against the applicant.
This ruling underscores the principle that criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to continue when the evidence fails to make out a prima facie case. The decision provides relief to the applicant, who faced trial for over five years based on allegations that were ultimately unsupported by the evidence.
