Gurdeep Singh And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1652 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.797 of 2023
Gurdeep Singh And Another                          ....Petitioners

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                   ....Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, Advocate for the petitioners.
            Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.
            Mr. Kamlesh Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Prince
            Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent no.3.
                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioners Gurdeep Singh and Balwant

Singh seek quashing of FIR No.0169 of 2023, dated

04.05.2023, under Sections 147, 148, 326 and 506 IPC,

Police Station Jaspur, Thana Jaspur, District Udham Singh

Nagar, with related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 28.04.2023, at 5:00 in

the evening, when the informant, who is respondent no.3,

along with his helper Sitaram was returning to his house, the

petitioners, along with other co-accused, waylaid him, abused

him and asked him to deliver his property to the petitioners

and others, and, thereafter attacked him with sharp edged

weapon, with sword and hockey, the butt of double barrel gun

and country made pistol, etc, due to which the informant

sustained serious injuries. He was referred to hospital. He

sustained fracture in a bone below right eye and nasal bone

and jaw bone have also been fractured.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

that it is a false FIR. It is argued that, in fact, an FIR was

lodged against the informant with regard to an incident dated

26.04.2023 by one Sahab Singh, in which the petitioners are

the witnesses. As a counter blast to it, the instant FIR has

been lodged. The injured never approached the doctor

immediately. It is after long delay, he consulted some eye-

surgeon. There has been no fracture.

5. Reference has been made to Annexure No.4 to

the writ petition, which is the first medical examination report

of the injured, in which certain investigation has been

suggested. But, it also records that there have been injuries

over the nasal bridge, swelling in both eyes, etc. What

happened thereafter, may perhaps be a matter of

investigation.

6. It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. If the FIR discloses commission of

offences, generally no interference is warranted, unless there

are exceptional circumstances to do so.

7. The FIR in the instant case categorically

discloses commission of very serious offence. What is its

truthfulness, it would definitely fall for scrutiny during

investigation or trial, as the case may be. On behalf of the

petitioners himself, Annexure No.4, the medical examiation

report of the informant, has been placed, which, in fact, to

certain extent supports the prosecution case. Therefore, this

Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any

interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be

dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

8. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 16.06.2023 Ravi Bisht