Godhan Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 716 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


        Criminal Misc. Application No. 312 of 2022

Godhan Singh                                           ........... Petitioner

                                     Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another                     ........ Respondents


Present : Mr. Rakesh Negi, Advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder for the
          State/respondent no.1.
          Mr. Rajendra Singh Negi, Advocate for respondent no.2.



                                JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Challenge in this petition is made to the

charge-sheet dated 26.10.2021 as well as cognizance and

summoning order dated 01.02.2022, passed in Criminal

Case No.185 of 2022, State vs. Godhan Singh, under

Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, pending in the court of Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Almora (for short, "the case") as well

as the entire proceedings of the case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The respondent no.2 (for short, "the informant")

filed an FIR on 27.09.2021. According to it, on

25.09.2021, at 08:00 in the morning, the petitioner

abused and attacked to the informant with the danda. He

also threatened him to the life. Some persons intervened

and saved the informant. It is this FIR, in which, after

investigation charge-sheet has been submitted and

cognizance was taken, which is impugned in this petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that, in fact, with regard to the same incident, on

25.09.2021 itself at 03:00 PM, the petitioner had lodged

an FIR. The petitioner was abused and threatened by the

informant.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also

submit that the witnesses, who have been named in the

FIR by the informant did not support the prosecution

case and they had given affidavits to the Investigating

Officer but, the Investigating Officer did not take them

into consideration. The Investigating Officer had recorded

the statements of four other persons.

7. The State counsel would submit that the

incident is admitted by the petitioner. He himself had

lodged an FIR. Therefore, no interference is warranted.

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

In case, prima facie offence is disclosed, generally

interference is not warranted. The FIR in the instant case

categorically discloses commission of offences. The

Investigating Officer, after investigation has submitted the

charge-sheet. This incident has occurred, this fact has

also been admitted by the petitioner. He had also filed an

FIR on 25.09.2021. The petitioner had a different version.

The truthfulness of both the FIRs, credibility and

reliability of the witnesses would be subject to the

scrutiny during the trial. Therefore, there is no reason to

make any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves

to be dismissed.

9. The petition is dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 11.03.2022 Sanjay