Uttarakhand High Court
The Applicants Have Put A ... vs Unknown on 4 October, 2023
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.1951 of 2023
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Desh Raj Singh, Advocate, for the
applicants.
Mr. B.C.Joshi, AGA, for the State of
Uttarakhand/1.
The applicants have put a challenge to
the proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1105
of 2023, "State Vs. Kaluram and others", being
the proceedings, which are pending
consideration before the court of ACJM,
Laksar, District Haridwar, wherein, the
applicants have been summoned to be tried for
the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
504 and 506 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicants for the
purposes of putting a challenge to the aforesaid
proceedings has confined his argument from the
following prospective:-
"That the FIR as registered on
28.08.2022, which is the genesis of
the controversy, herein, is a belated
FIR in relation to the incident, which
was chanced on 05.06.2022.
Secondly, he submits that the FIR in
question happens to be a counter blast
to the earlier FIR, which was
registered by him as referred to an FIR
No.449, dated 08.06.2022, which
according to him, it relates to the same
offences, for which the instant FIR has
been registered on which the
investigation was carried and the
chargesheet has been submitted."
For the purposes of scrutinizing as to
whether it is a counter blast or not, because the
incident in the two FIRs are distinctly related to
the incident of 05.06.2022 and 06.06.2022.
What comparative bearing will it have is a
subject matter which is to be decided by the
Trial Court. Even what affect the delayed FIR
would have, is a question to be appreciated after
providing an opportunity to the other side to
lead their evidence.
This court has been consistently
observing that the C482 applications are being
resorted to as to be a forum available to the
litigant against whom the criminal proceedings
is drawn, for calling upon the court exercising
the inherent jurisdiction under section 482
CrPC to appreciate the evidence and to analyze
the argument pertaining to the counter blast
proceedings or what bearing the delayed FIR
would have, because for the said purpose, the
Court will have to appreciate an evidence,
which is not a scope of 482 of CrPC, because
that is exclusively falling within the domain of
the trial court in the light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, where pre trial of the
criminal proceedings is not the scope open to be
ventured under section 482 of CrPC.
Hence, I do not find any merit in the
C482 application, the same is accordingly
rejected, leaving all contentions open for the
applicants to raise, at the stage, when the trial is
proceeded with.
Besides this, it will be open for the
applicants, if so advised, to take recourse to the
judgment of "Satender Kumar Antil Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation and
another" as reported in 2022 (10) SCC 51.
Subject to the aforesaid, the C482
application stands dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
04.10.2023
NR
