5 May vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 425 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

5 May vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 15 May, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2025:UHC:3946
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 2193 of 2022
                           15 May, 2025
Ravi Saini                                              --Applicant

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Another                    --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
      Mr. Girish Chandra Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the
      applicant, appeared through video conferencing.
      Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola
      Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
      Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
      Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of the present C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the impugned order dated 02.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.2783 of 2022 State Vs. Ravi Saini, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 504, 506, 326 IPC, whereby, the application filed by the applicant under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. was rejected as well as the judgment and order dated 30.11.2022 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No.209 of 2022, Ravi Saini Vs. State and Another, whereby, the said revision was dismissed by affirming the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by learned ACJM.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.08.2021, an FIR under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, was lodged against the applicant and

2025:UHC:3946 other four persons. Thereafter, after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance was taken against the applicant under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC and also in the added Section 326 of IPC.

4. The applicant, thereafter, filed an application before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge, wherein, the applicant on the basis of documents submitted by the Investigating Officer submitted that charges against him are groundless. Learned ACJM while considering his application under Section 239 Cr.P.C., perused the document sent with the police report and after perusing the supplementary medical report, opined that in the said report there is mention of fracture in the skull bone and serious injury was recorded and finally discharge application of the applicant was dismissed on 02.08.2022.

5. Against the said order dated 02.08.2022, the applicant has filed a criminal revision, being Criminal Revision No.209 of 2022, Ravi Saini Vs. State and Another, whereby, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2022 dismissed the said revision concluding that there are sufficient grounds for framing charges against the applicant under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452, 504, 506, 326 IPC and confirm the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the learned ACJM. Thus, the applicant is before this Court by challenging both the impugned judgments and orders.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned ACJM while passing the impugned order

2025:UHC:3946 has not considered the scope of discharge and has not given weightage to the suspicion which arose due to wrong interpretation of the medical report and has not considered that it is the settled law if two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion as distinguish as grave suspicion, the Court would be empowered to discharge the accused without conducting a mini trial.

7. He further submitted that the learned Courts below have not considered the fact that at the stage of discharge any consistency in the investigation, absurdity in the allegations and any interpretation of the documents and the police report submitted under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. has to be done carefully before bringing a citizen into the clutches of criminal trial. Learned Courts below has failed to appreciate that there was an enmity between the applicant and the informant, and it did not examine the material sent with the police report and even completely misinterpret the medical report without referring to the correct medical terminology and an injury of finger was considered as injury on the skull of the victim. He also submitted that the evidences of the three prosecution witnesses have now been recorded.

8. Per contra, learned State Counsel contended in its counter affidavit that the concerned police after collecting the concrete evidence against the applicant and other co-accused persons established their complicity in the crime. Both the Courts below after applying its judicial mind have rightly passed the impugned orders, thus, the present C482 application deserves to be dismissed. He also submitted that the trial is at the advance stage and is about to be concluded.

2025:UHC:3946

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire material available on record, I am in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Revisional Court. Learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below. It is a well-reasoned judgment, and, therefore, no interference is warranted. Admittedly, the trial is at the advance stage and majority of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the trial is about to come to an end, there is no scope to scuttle the trial by discharging the applicant at this belated stage. The reasoning given by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Para Nos.10 and 11 of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2022, is perfect, legal and need no interference.

10. In view of the above, the present C482 application is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.

11. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 15.05.2025 PN PREETI

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38 331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,

NEGI postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FA E064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.05.16 15:06:00 +05'30'