Praveen Bharadwaj vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 539 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.367 of 2023

Praveen Bharadwaj                                      ....Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                     ....Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Mr. P.S. Uniyal, Brief Holder
            for the State.

                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.0059 of

2023, dated 22.02.2023, under Sections 307, 323, 506 IPC,

Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 22.02.2023, the

petitioner attacked the injured Abhay on his head by a danda,

due to which, he sustained serious injuries. The FIR records

that the petitioner also threatened the injured Abhay to life.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner is Secretary of a Housing Society in

Dehradun. He would submit that some persons were trying to

encroach upon a park, which was repeatedly resisted by the

petitioner and on 22.02.2023, the informant along with other

persons attacked the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner,

his son and his wife sustained injuries, of which an FIR No.62

of 2013 under Sections 147, 149, 323, 352, 356, 427, 452,

509 IPC was lodged at Police Station Rajpur. It is argued that

it is the petitioner, who called the police. Police reached at the

spot and intervened.

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that in the

instant case, there is a cross FIR; incident is admitted and it

is captured in the CCTV footages.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner

would submit that at least the Court could call the CCTV

footages or the injury report of the injured to verify as to what

had happened.

7. It is a petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. Generally, if an FIR discloses

commission of any offences, no interference is warranted. In

the instant case, there are specific allegations that serious

injuries were caused by the petitioner on the head of Abhay,

the son of the informant. It is the case of the petitioner that,

in fact, he, his wife and his son were attacked and some other

offences were committed to them by the informant and other

persons, of which an FIR has already been lodged. Some

incident took place. The FIR, in the instant case, discloses

commission of offence. The Investigating Officer ("IO") would

collect evidence and find truthfulness of the FIR.

8. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the

IO is biased. This Court cannot accept this statement at this

stage for quashing the FIR. It is too early to make any

conclusion on this aspect.

9. Since the FIR discloses commission of an offence

and it is even admitted to the petitioner that an incident took

place, but the petitioner has a different version. The IO would

definitely require to investigate as to whether it was a case of

free fight or was a party aggressor and another defender?

10. Having considered, 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.

11. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.03.2023 Ravi Bisht