2025:UHC:7628

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1829 of 2021

Pappoo Ram ......Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand &Another …..Respondents

with

CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1734 of 2021

Jasveer & Others ......Applicants

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Another …..Respondents

Presence:

Mr. Nandan Arya learned counsel for the Applicant in C-482 No. 1829 of
2021 and Mr. Tajhar Qayyum, learned counsel for the Applicant in C-482
No. 1734 of 2021.

Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned A.G.A. for the State, and Mr. Abhishek Verma,
learned counsel for the private Respondent.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. These two applications, heard together and being connected on facts as
well as on the impugned order, invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this

1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another

Ashish Naithani J.
 2025:UHC:7628

Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to

challenge the order dated 28 October 2021 passed by the Court of the
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Haridwar.

2. By the said order the learned Special Judge rejected the Final Report
No. 86/2020 (and a subsequent closure report filed after further
investigation), took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections
323, 376(DA), 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(g)
read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
(POCSO)Act, 2012, and directed registration of a State case for trial.

3. The State’s case, in brief as gathered from the materials considered by

the court below, is that an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC
by the informant led to the registration of the FIR alleging that on 30
July 2020 the minor victim, aged about fifteen years, was subjected to
aggravated sexual assault, followed by criminal intimidation on 8
August 2020.

4. In the course of investigation, the victim was medically examined, and

her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC were recorded.
The Investigating Officer submitted Final Report No. 86/2020, opining
that no case was made out; upon a direction for further investigation,
another closure report was filed. The learned Special Judge, upon
consideration of the case diary, particularly the victim’s statements and
the documentary material relating to age, disagreed with the police
conclusion, rejected both reports and took cognizance as aforesaid.

5. In one of the Applications,learned counsel for the Applicant asserts that

the impugned order is mechanical; that there was a

2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another

Ashish Naithani J.
 2025:UHC:7628

neighbourhood/property dispute; that earlier preventive proceedings

under Sections 107/116 of the CrPC existed; that medical examination
did not reveal anyinjuries, and that the father and the son being co-
accused renders the accusation inherently improbable.

6. It was therefore prayed that the cognizance order be quashed along with
all consequential proceedings.

7. In the companion application, the learned Counsel for the Applicants

similarly assailed the impugned order, relying upon perceived
inconsistencies, and on the Investigating Officer’s stance that no
offence was made out.

8. The State and the complainant–private Respondent opposed the

applications and supported the order of cognizance, emphasising the
consistency of the victim’s statements and her minority at the time of
the incident. It was further brought on record by the Investigating
Officer, through a subsequent counter affidavit, that proceedings under
Section 182 of the IPC had been initiated, a fact relied upon by the
Applicants and contested by the complainant.

9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants, the learned Brief
Holder for the State, and the learned Counsel for the complainant–
private Respondent, and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds
that the legal position governing the field is well settled. Upon receipt
of a police report under Section 173(2) CrPC opining that no case is
made out, a Magistrate is not bound by the conclusion of the
Investigating Officer and may, if the materials collected disclose an

3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another

Ashish Naithani J.
 2025:UHC:7628

offence, take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC

notwithstanding the negative report.

10. Equally well settled are the limits on the High Court’s power to
interdict criminal proceedings at the threshold. In State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
enumerated illustrative categories where the power of quashing may be
exercised, namely where the allegations do not disclose any offence,
where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or abuse
of process, or where the case otherwise falls within narrowly defined
exceptions. The Court, however, must refrain from embarking upon a
meticulous appreciation of evidence at this stage.

11. In cases alleging sexual assault under the POCSO Act, the
approach of the courts is equally well settled. The testimony of the
child victim, if found credible and trustworthy, does not require
mechanical corroboration, and the mere absence of injuries or
immediate medical signs is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to discard
the accusation.
12. The impugned order is a reasoned order recording specific
grounds for disagreeing with the police closureprimarily, the consistent
narration by the victim in her statements under Sections 161 and 164
CrPC and material indicating minority.
13. The learned Special Judge adverted to the case diary and
articulated why, notwithstanding the medical papers, the matter
warranted trial on charges referable to Section 6 of the POCSO Act
together with allied provisions of the IPC. This exercise clearly reflects

4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another

Ashish Naithani J.
 2025:UHC:7628

due application of mind, and the course adopted in rejecting the final
report and taking cognizance is firmly sanctioned by law.
14. The submissions resting on the absence of injuries and on
supposed improbabilities of the incident invite an evaluation of fact that
is the province of the trial court.
15. As observed earlier, the absence of medical evidence does not,
ipso facto, exculpate an accused in cases of sexual assault, nor is it
uncommon that such signs may be minimal or transient. Whether the
inter se relationship of the accused renders the accusation implausible,
whether the background of neighbourhood discord suggests a motive
for false implication, and whether inconsistencies affect credibility are
all matters for cross-examination and trial, not grounds for quashing at
the inception.
16. Considerable emphasis was laid by the Applicants on the stand of
the Investigating Officer, including the initiation of proceedings under
Section 182 of the IPC. The opinion of the police does not bind the
court. Once the Special Judge has, upon an independent appraisal of the
materials collected by the very investigation, recorded reasons to
disagree with the closure report and to take cognizance, the subsequent
opinions or departmental steps of the Investigating Officer cannot
eclipse the jurisdiction validly exercised by the court below. The
probative value, if any, of such later steps can be canvassed at trial.

17. The contention that the order is “mechanical” is equally

untenable. The order sets out the statements relied upon, the statutory
framework, and the basis for invoking aggravated provisions, while
expressly noting the minority of the victim and the sensitivity of the

5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another

Ashish Naithani J.
 2025:UHC:7628

offence. These features distinguish the present case from those where
cognizance is taken in a cryptic or perfunctory manner. In any event,
even a brief order of cognizance is not, by itself, a ground for quashing,
so long as the case diary materials disclose a prima facie offence.
18. This case does not fall within any of the categories delineated in
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. On the
contrary, the allegations, taken at face value and accepted in their
entirety, do disclose the commission of cognizable offences, including
aggravated sexual assault under the POCSO Act. The applications are,
accordingly, liable to dismissal.
ORDER

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the impugned order dated 28 October
2021 does not disclose any illegality or perversity warranting interference
under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021 (Pappoo Ram v. State of

Uttarakhand & Another) and Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021
(Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another) are, accordingly, liable
to dismissal and are dismissed.

Any interim order shall stand vacated. The trial court is directed to proceed
with the matter in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations
herein, and to do so with due expedition, considering the nature of the
offence and the age of the victim at the time of the incident.

(Ashish Naithani, J.)

Dated:21.07.2025

NR

6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1829 of 2021------Pappoo Ram v. State of Uttarakhand &Another with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1734 of 2021------Jasveer & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Another

Ashish Naithani J.