NyayAI Legal Knowledge Graph — Public Judgment & Act Pages (validation build, unlisted)

WPCRL/998/2011 of ANIL KUMAR MAHESHWARI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS

Court
Uttarakhand High Court
Decision date
2014-06-16
Case number
998 of 2011

Parties

Cites (1 resolved of 2 detected)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 998 of 2011

Anil Kumar Maheshwari

….. Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others ….Respondents

With

Criminal Writ Petition No. 8 of 2012

Dr. Shishupal Yadav ….. Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others ….Respondents

Mr. Prakash Petshali, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.K. Sah, Dy. Advocate General (Cri), for the State/respondents no. 1 & 2.

June 16th, 2014

Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

This order will adjudicate both the above titled writ petitions as the same have been filed with the similar/same prayers.

The matter pertains to the riots happened in Rudrapur City of Uttarakhand way back in the year 2011. The FIRs were lodged. The matter was investigated, which resulted into submission of the chargesheet no. 15/13 dated 12.11.2013 and 15A/13 dated 12.11.2013.

Now, the petitioners want the matter to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Learned Counsel of the petitioners placed reliance upon the case of State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Others, (2011) 9 SCC 182.

Having considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and after hearing the learned Counsel of the petitioners, I think that to issue the directions for further investigation by the Central Bureau

of Investigation is quite unsubstantial. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court was in quite different perspective of mass sex scandal case.

More so, as result of submission of above-mentioned chargesheet, the trial is being proceeded in the competent court.

Both these petitions are bereft of merit and are hereby dismissed.

Prabodh

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.)