Ajay Kumar And Others ...... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3629 UK

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1931 of 2022


Ajay Kumar and Others                        ...... Petitioners

                               Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another           ..... Respondents


Presents:-
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.



                          JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is

made to the chargesheet dated 30.10.2021,

cognizance/summoning order dated 20.01.2022, passed

in Criminal Case No.33 of 2022, State Vs. Ajay and

others, under Sections 147, 452, 354, 323, 504, 506

IPC, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Rishikesh, District Dehradun ("the case"), as well as the

entire proceedings of the case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The case is based on an FIR lodged by the

respondent no.2 ("the informant") on 01.08.2021 under

Sections 147, 452, 354, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police

Station Rishikesh, District Dehradun. According to it, on

01.08.2021, at 2:30 PM, the petitioners and others

attacked, assaulted the husband of the informant and

others. It is this FIR, in which after investigation

chargesheet has been submitted, which is the basis of

the case. Cognizance has been taken on 20.01.2022. It

is impugned herein.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that, in fact, the dispute is between family

members. It originated due to a property dispute

between the family members. The property dispute has

since been settled. It is also submitted that, in fact, the

petitioner no.2, Nitu, had also filed an FIR with regard to

the incident of the same date against the informant and

her husband, which was registered as Crime No. 306 of

2021, under Sections 354A, 323, 506 IPC at Kotwali

Rishikesh, District-Dehradun, in which also chargesheet

has been filed. He would submit that after family

settlement, FIR has been filed against them.

5. This is a petition under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"). The

jurisdiction is much wide, but also guided by the

principles of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the catena of decisions. The Court refrains to

burden this judgment with the cases. Suffice it to say, in

case prima facie case is made out, no interference is

generally made in this jurisdiction. A mini trial is not

conducted. The truthfulness or otherwise of the

witnesses is not assessed, at this stage.

6. In the instance case, according to the

petitioners themselves, with regard to the incident of

01.08.2021, they had also filed an FIR against the

informant and her husband, in which chargesheet has

also been filed. What does it mean? Does not it mean

that the incident took place?

7. The FIR in the instant case discloses

offences. After investigation, chargesheet has been filed.

Even the petitioners admit the incident and they have a

different version of it.

8. During the course of argument, it is also

argued that despite settlement, the informant and her

husband are still trying to encroach upon the property of

the petitioners. This argument has no bearing in this

case. If the petitioners have some civil cause of action,

they can very well seek remedy at an appropriate forum.

9. Having considered, this Court is of the view

that there is no reason to make any interference in this

matter. This petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the

petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of

admission itself.

10. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 15.11.2022 Ravi Bisht