Uttarakhand High Court
C482/311/2017 on 22 July, 2025
2025:UHC:6448
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C482/311/2017
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the
applicants.
2. Mr. B.N. Maulakhi, learned Deputy A.G.
along with Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for
respondent no.2.
4. The present application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants seeking
quashing of the summoning/cognizance order
dated 08.11.2016 passed by the learned
Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima in
Criminal Case No. 2298 of 2016, as well as the
entire proceedings of the said criminal case.
5. Brief facts of the case, as per the record,
are that respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR against
the applicants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
504, and 506 IPC. Pursuant thereto, after
completion of investigation, the Investigating
Officer submitted a charge sheet against the
applicants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
504, 506, and 326 IPC. Based on the said charge
sheet, the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate,
Khatima, took cognizance and issued the
impugned order dated 08.11.2016. Hence, this
application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants would
submit that the applicants are innocent and have
been falsely implicated due to a family dispute,
as respondent no. 2 is the nephew of applicant
no. 1 and cousin of applicant no. 2. He further
would further submit that there was a delay of
two days in lodging the FIR as the incident
occurred on 11.04.2016, while the FIR was
lodged on 13.04.2016. He would further submit
2025:UHC:6448
that the offences alleged are non-cognizable in
nature, and under Section 155(1) and (2) Cr.P.C.,
the police could not have investigated the matter
without prior permission of the Magistrate
concerned. However, in the present case, the
police registered the FIR and conducted the
investigation without obtaining such permission,
rendering the entire proceedings unsustainable in
law.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
no. 2 would submit that the Investigating Officer
conducted a proper investigation and submitted
the charge sheet after collecting relevant
evidence. The trial court, after considering the
material on record, rightly took cognizance. He
would further submit that the delay in lodging
the FIR was due to the injured being under
medical treatment; that, the present application
raises disputed questions of fact which cannot be
decided in proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
8. Learned State Counsel also supports the
impugned order and submits that although the
FIR was initially registered under Sections 147,
148, 149, 323, 504, and 506 IPC, however,
during investigation and upon receipt of the
medical report of the victims, Section 326 IPC
was added. Learned State counsel would further
submit that the offences under Sections 147, 148,
149, 506, and 326 IPC are cognizable, and
therefore the argument of the applicant regarding
non-cognizability and the applicability of
Section 155 Cr.P.C. has no merit.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
10. A perusal of the FIR clearly discloses
cognizable offences against the applicants. The
charge sheet indicates that after thorough
investigation, the Investigating Officer found
sufficient material to proceed, and the trial court
has taken cognizance accordingly.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of
2025:UHC:6448
judgments have held that at the stage of
cognizance and issuance of process, only the
allegations appearing from the face of the record
are to be considered and the defence of the
accused cannot be looked into either by the
Magistrate at the stage of cognizance or by the
High Court while exercising powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. The submissions made by
learned counsel for the applicants pertain to
disputed questions of fact which can be
adjudicated only during trial.
12. It is a well-settled principle that the
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to
be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and
only to prevent abuse of the process of law or to
secure the ends of justice.
13. In view of the above discussion, this Court
is not inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
14. Accordingly, the present application is
devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
15. No order as to costs.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
22.07.2025
Mamta
2025:UHC:6448
