Kunvarpal Singh And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 1481 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                   NAINITAL


Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 661 of 2022


Kunvarpal Singh and Another                       ...... Petitioners

                               Vs.

State of Uttarakhand
and Others                                       ..... Respondents



Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.



                          JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

Challenge in this petition is made to the

entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 108 of 2022,

State Vs. Arun and others, under Sections 147, 148,

149, 302 & 504 IPC, pending in the court Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the records.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would

submit that, in fact, the incident was captured in a

CCTV camera, which was installed in the shop of a

Sonu. Police had taken the DVD of the CCTV footages

but they have not made it part of case diary and it is not

made part of evidence by the Investigating Officer.

4. It is argued that the petitioners did not

commit any offence. They have been falsely implicated

and for extraneous considerations, they have been

implicated. Therefore, the proceedings against the

petitioners deserve to be quashed.

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that

considering the arguments, as raised by learned counsel

for the petitioners, would amount to conducting a trial,

which may be avoided in a proceeding under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

6. At the very outset, the Court wanted to

know from learned counsel for the petitioners, as to why

the compact disk, which according to the petitioners

contains the CCTV footages of the incident, may not be

filed in the trial as a defence.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that petitioners may be given liberty to produce

the CD in the trial court with the request to the court

below to get the CD forensically examined and it may

permitted to be used in the evidence by the petitioners.

8. It is the case of the petitioners that the

incident has been captured in a CCTV and the CCTV

footages have not been made part of investigation by the

Investigating Officer. The CCTV footages, according to

the petitioners, have been maintained in a compact disk

(Annexure 2 to the petition).

9. Petitioners are definitely at liberty to file

the compact disk ("CD") of the CCTV footages in the trial

court with the request to get the CD forensically

examined, with regard to the authenticity. In fact, it is a

kind of electronic evidence, which may definitely require

deeper scrutiny, as per law by the trial court.

10. With the above observation, the writ

petition stands disposed of.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 13.05.2022 Ravi Bisht