C482/312/2022 of GODHAN SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No. 312 of 2022

Godhan Singh

…........ Petitioner

State of Uttarakhand and another …..... Respondents

Present : Mr. Rakesh Negi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1.

Mr. Rajendra Singh Negi, Advocate for respondent no.2.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Challenge in this petition is made to the charge-sheet dated 26.10.2021 as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 01.02.2022, passed in Criminal Case No.185 of 2022, State vs. Godhan Singh, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora (for short, “the case”) as well as the entire proceedings of the case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The respondent no.2 (for short, “the informant”) filed an FIR on 27.09.2021. According to it, on

25.09.2021, at 08:00 in the morning, the petitioner abused and attacked to the informant with the danda. He also threatened him to the life. Some persons intervened and saved the informant. It is this FIR, in which, after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance was taken, which is impugned in this petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in fact, with regard to the same incident, on 25.09.2021 itself at 03:00 PM, the petitioner had lodged an FIR. The petitioner was abused and threatened by the informant.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the witnesses, who have been named in the FIR by the informant did not support the prosecution case and they had given affidavits to the Investigating Officer but, the Investigating Officer did not take them into consideration. The Investigating Officer had recorded the statements of four other persons.

7. The State counsel would submit that the incident is admitted by the petitioner. He himself had lodged an FIR. Therefore, no interference is warranted.

8. It is petition under Section 482 of the Code. In case, prima facie offence is disclosed, generally interference is not warranted. The FIR in the instant case categorically discloses commission of offences. The Investigating Officer, after investigation has submitted the charge-sheet. This incident has occurred, this fact has also been admitted by the petitioner. He had also filed an FIR on 25.09.2021. The petitioner had different version. The truthfulness of both the FIRs, credibility and reliability of the witnesses would be subject to the scrutiny during the trial. Therefore, there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. The petition is dismissed.

Sanjay

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

11.03.2022