Uttarakhand High Court
C482/2048/2022 on 16 November, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
Sl. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C482 No.2048 of 2022
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, Advocate, for the
applicants.
Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, D.A.G, for the State
of Uttarakhand.
The applicants to the present C482
Application have questioned the propriety of the
order dated 29th March, 2022, which was passed
by the Judicial Magistrate IInd Haridwar in a
Complaint Case No.3263 of 2019, "Suraj Prakash
Vs. Ravindra Kumar Kaushik and others", for
trying the present applicants for the commission
of the offences under sections 323, 427, 452, 504
and 506 of IPC.
There are three limb of arguments of the
learned counsel for the applicants. First is that
the provisions contained under section 202 of
CrPC was not complied with in the complaint
case, if the summoning order itself is scrutinized
on merits, and if the observations, which has
been made by the court in paragraph nos.7 and 8,
of the summoning order itself, it shows that the
provisions contained under section 202 of the
CrPC, was complied with by the court itself, for
carrying out the necessary investigation or
inspection necessitating the summoning of the
present applicants. As per the provisions
contained under section 202 of CrPC, there are
various modes of conducting the investigation to
justify the necessitating of the present applicants
in the complaint case and the inspection can also
be conducted by the court, which apparently as
per the findings recorded in paragraph nos.7 and
8, of the summoning order was complied with by
the court and the finding in that regard has been
recorded.
Second argument extended by the learned
counsel for the applicants is that the present
complaint proceeding instituted on 18th
December, 2019, is rather the counter blast to his
earlier FIR, as registered on 01st November,
2019. This plea of the counter blast is also not
tenable from the contents of the complaint,
because the complaint registered, was as a
consequence of the incident which has chanced
on 08th December, 2019, which is quite obviously
after the registration of the FIR on 01.11.2019,
merely because of the fact that there happens to
be an earlier FIR, the occurrence of the second
incident on 08th December, 2019, cannot be ruled
out and which could be a fact which could be
decided by the learned Trial Court on its merit.
Third argument, extended by the learned
counsel for the applicants, that applicant no.1,
was not present on the date of the incident
because he was suffering from the heart problems
and he was under treatment with effect from 14th
November, 2019 to 20th November, 2019. In fact,
these dates during which he was hospitalized do
not correspond with the date of the incident
which had chanced on 18th December, 2019,
because his availability on the said date itself is
quite apparent from his pleadings raised by the
learned counsel for the applicants in their C482
Application.
In that eventuality, this Court is not
inclined to interfere in the C482 Application, and
the same is accordingly dismissed.
However, the dismissal of the present
C482 Application would be without prejudice to
the rights of the applicants, to resort to their
recourses available under the parameters laid
down by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court judgment, as rendered in the matters of
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another" as reported in 2021
(10) SCC 773, as all the offences which are
complaint of, they fall for within the category
"A" of the offences as classified by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, and the recourse available to the
applicants would be to resort to the remedies
under sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph no.3, of the
aforesaid judgment.
Subject to the aforesaid, the C482
Application stands dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
16.11.2022
NR/
