Abhishek Bharadwaj vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2248 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

      Criminal Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2023
Abhishek Bharadwaj                         .............Petitioner

                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ...........Respondents
Present:-
            Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the
            petitioner.
            Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe and
            Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Brief Holders for the
            State/respondent nos.1 and 2.



                         JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the

FIR No.425 of 2023, dated 05.08.2023, under Sections

147, 323, 341, 392, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station SIDCUL,

District Haridwar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate in

District Court, Haridwar. According to the FIR, on

01.08.2023, he assaulted one of the litigants in the

court's premises, hold him with hands, attacked him and

beaten him up mercilessly. Not only this, the FIR records

that the petitioner had a knife with him, which he wanted

to use, but the informant ("the respondent no.3")

somehow managed to escape. The informant called the

police in the court premises. The FIR records that the

petitioner has threatened the informant to life. When the

informant reached to police, according to the FIR, the

petitioner reached at the police station along with some

lawyers, as well.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the FIR is a counterblast of the FIR that was

lodged by the petitioner. It is the informant, who

assaulted the petitioner in the court premises. Reference

has been made to the FIR No.419 of 2023, lodged at

Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar, which was

lodged by the petitioner. According to the FIR lodged by

the petitioner, on 01.08.2023, at 02:00 in the afternoon,

the informant entered into the chamber of the petitioner

and assaulted him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that, in fact, it is the informant, who had

assaulted the petitioner.

6. This is writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. If FIR discloses commission of

offences, generally no interference is warranted unless

there are compelling circumstances to do so.

7. It is true that the FIR in the instant case has

been lodged on 05.08.2023. It is also true that the FIR

that has been lodged by the petitioner was lodged on

01.08.2023. On 01.08.2023, in the court premises

something had happened. The petitioner has a version.

The informant in the instant case has a version. The

informant in the instant case has categorically stated in

the FIR, as to how he was assaulted, he sustained

injuries and it happened inside the court premises and

not only this, it also states that the petitioner reached at

the police station also when the informant was taken at

the police station under the distress call made by him.

There the petitioner further threatened the informant.

8. The FIR in the instant case discloses

commission of offences, in fact, if it is true, it is very

serious thing. The allegations per se are much serious.

9. On being asked, learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that the matter has not been

taken cognizance by the Bar Council.

10. The FIR in the instant case discloses

commission of serious offences. The truthfulness and

credibility of the FIR will fall for scrutiny during

investigation or the trial, as the case may be. Merely, the

FIR is subsequent to the FIR that was filed by the

petitioner, the instant FIR may not be said to be based on

mala fide or a counterblast.

11. Having considered, this Court does not see any

reason to make any interference in this matter.

Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the

stage of admission itself.

12. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 16.08.2023 Sanjay