Begraj And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1352 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


      Criminal Misc. Application No. 570 of 2022

Begraj and others                                    ........... Petitioner

                                      Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                      ........ Respondents



Present : Mr. Shubhr Rastogi, Advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.



                                JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the

summoning order dated 08.12.2021, passed in Criminal

Case No. 392 of 2021, Laxmi Devi vs. Begraj and others,

under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, by the

court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/2nd

Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar ("the case") as

well as proceedings of the case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The respondent no.2 (the complainant) filed a

complaint under Sections 147, 148,452, 354, 392, 504,

506, 323 IPC, against the petitioners on 15.09.2021.

According to it, on 11.09.2021, at 10:00 in the late

evening, the petitioners armed with firearms, sharped

edged weapons, lathi-danda and silencer, entered into the

house of the complainant and attacked her and her family

members, due to which, they sustained injuries. It is this

complaint, in which, after inquiry under Sections 200 and

202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,

"the Code"), by the impugned order, the petitioners have

been summoned to answer the accusation under Sections

147, 148, 452, 354, 392, 504, 506, 323 IPC, which is

impugned herein.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that with regard to the same incident, initially

FIR, filed by the husband of the complainant on

14.09.2021, at 08:48 PM at Police Station Shyampur

District Haridwar, in which, the investigation is

underway. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioners, proceedings were also undertaken by the

police under Sections 107/116/151 of the Code.

5. Reference has been made to annexure no.4,

which reveals that with regard to the incident, the

petitioner Begraj was arrested by the police in the

proceedings under Sections 107/116/151 of the Code.

6. It is also submitted that, in fact, the petitioner

Begraj have also moved an FIR, prior to filing of the FIR,

when it was not lodged, he approached the court under

Section 156(3) of the Code and thereafter, FIR No.170 of

2021, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC

was lodged at Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar

against the complainant and her family members.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the parties are neighbours; they may settle

the dispute amicably.

8. It is a petition under Section 482 of the Code.

The jurisdiction is wide but, much guided by the settled

principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in a catena of judgments.

9. In case, prima facie case is made out, generally

interference is not warranted unless there are exceptional

circumstances to do so.

10. In the instant case, the dispute took place. The

police has taken preventive measures and arrested

Begraj. It is evident by the Annexure no.4, the Challani

Report of the Police. It is true that with regard to the same

incident, the husband of the complainant has also filed

an FIR No.151 of 2021 at Police Station Shyampur,

District Haridwar.

11. It is submitted that the investigation is already

pending in the matter. In such cases, the Code provides

the procedure that may be followed when there is a

complaint case and police investigation in the same

offence. Section 210 of the Code makes provision to deal

with. Undoubtedly, once this fact is brought to the notice

of the court concerned, the court shall proceed in

accordance with Section 210 of the Code.

12. It is submitted that parties are neighbours and

the matter may be amicably settled, but it may also not

be a ground to entertain the petition.

13. Cross-case has already been filed by the

petitioner Begraj. There is an FIR, which is under

investigation with regard to the same incident based on

the FIR lodged by the petitioner Begraj.

14. There are cross versions. This Court may not

conduct a mini trial. During trial, the material may be

scrutinized to ascertain, as to whether it was a free fight

or a party was an aggressor or a defender? Therefore, this

Court is of a view that no interference is warranted in the

petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be

dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

15. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 29.04.2022 Sanjay