Uttarakhand High Court
Mohit Kumar And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 22 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2091 of 2022
Mohit Kumar and others
..... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another
.....Respondents
Mr. Bilal Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioners.
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
Charge-Sheet dated 11.12.2020, summoning order
dated 02.04.2021, passed in Criminal Case No. 594 of
2022 State Vs. Mohit Kumar and others, by the court
of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Laksar, District Haridwar. ("the case")
and entire proceedings of the case.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The case, in fact, originate from an F.I.R.
lodged by respondent no. 2 ("the informant"). According
to it, on 17.11.2020 at 08.00 in the morning, the
petitioners abused and attacked the informant, his
brother and others. On the said F.I.R., after
investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted and
cognizance has been taken against the petitioners,
which is impugned herein.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that instant FIR is nothing but, counterblast to
the FIR which was lodged by petitioner no. 1 on
23.11.2020 at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar
with regard to the same incident. It is argued that the
FIR in the instant case is counterblast.
5. He submits that a direction may be given to
the court below to decide the bail application of the
petitioners, in view of the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satendra Kumar
Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another,
(2021) 10 SSC 773.
6. The learned State counsel submits that the
court below would definitely follow the directions
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment
Satendra Kumar Antil (Supra).
7. The scope of the jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C., is quite wide, but much guided by a
catena of decisions. Suffice to say, in case prima facie,
offence is made out, generally no interference is
warranted.
8. In the instant case, the F.I.R., clearly
discloses commission of offence, which was found to be
true after investigation. Even otherwise, no arguments
has been raised on merits. Therefore, there is no
reasons to make an interference, accordingly, the
petition deserves to be dismissed at the admission
stage itself.
9. Its argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that a direction may be issued to the court
below to follow the directions of Hon'ble Supreme
Court, as given in the case Satendra Kumar (supra).
The directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as given in
the case Satendra Kumar (supra) is law of a land. Each
court has to follow these directions. In order to follow
the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no further
directions of this Court is required.
10. With the above observation, the petition is
dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
22.11.2022
MR/PN
