Gurmeet Singh And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 3 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Gurmeet Singh And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 2 January, 2024

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.1635 of 2023
Gurmeet Singh and Another                              ....Petitioners
                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                      ....Respondents

Present:-
             Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Mr. Vipul Painuly, Brief Holder for the State.


                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioners- Gurmeet Singh and Kalidas Ray

alias Kalipad seek quashing of Case Crime No.225 of 2023,

under Sections 302, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Pantnagar,

District Udham Singh Nagar, with related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The deceased had left his house on 01.07.2023

at 5:00 in the morning, but he did not return. All search went

in vain. On 03.07.2023, the dead body of the deceased was

found in a mutilated state. The FIR records that in fact, on

20.06.2023, when the deceased had gone for cutting grass, he

was assaulted and beaten up by the petitioners and others.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the FIR has been lodged after a delay of 3

months; in the FIR, only suspicion has been raised on the

petitioners; the FIR has been used as a tool for extortion;

there is no evidence against the petitioners; the cause of

death could not be ascertained.

5. Learned State Counsel, under instructions,

would submit that as of now, no evidence has been found

against any person in the matter.

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

Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of

offence, generally, no interference is warranted unless there

are compelling circumstances to do so.

7. It is true that the FIR has been lodged based on

application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 given by the informant, which was given on

06.09.2023. The process has been delayed. It is also true

that, according to the FIR, it is not a case of direct evidence.

It is also true that the petitioners have been named on the

basis that on 20.06.2023, the deceased was beaten up and

he had told that it is the petitioners and the co-accused, who

had treated the deceased in that manner. The question that

would fall for investigation is as to how the deceased died? If

it is a homicidal death, who has caused it? How was it

caused? What was its motive? When was it caused? These

and many other related questions would be answered by the

Investigating Officer. At this stage, this Court cannot

intervene in the matter.

8. The FIR discloses that the deceased was found

dead and there were various injuries on the person of the

deceased. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no

reason to make any interference, at this stage. The petition

deserves to be dismissed, at the stage of admission itself.

9. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.01.2024 Ravi Bisht