High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 09 UK CK 0044

Amandeep Kaur Alias Amanpreeet Kaur And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 21 September 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1453 Of 2020

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 348 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Petitioner has filed instant petition for quashing the FIR No. 300 of 2020, under Section 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC, Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

3.

According to the FIR, on 30.08.2020, at 6:45 in the evening, when Charanjeet Singh was returning home, on the way, he was intercepted, abused and assaulted with sword, knife and other objects by the petitioners. Due to which, Charanjeet Singh fell on the ground and still he was assaulted. A report was lodged next date by the son of Charanjeet Singh.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that it is a cross case. Petitioner no.2 Bhupendra Singh has already been arrested and petitioner nos. 1 and 3 may now be given time to surrender before the court concerned because the whole family has been implicated in the case.

5.

FIR of the cross case is FIR No. 302 of 2020, under Sections 324, 504, 506, 452 IPC, Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. It was lodged on 01.09.2020 of an incident dated 30.08.2020. In that, the informant, injured and others have been made accused.

6.

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If FIR discloses commission of offences, generally no interference is warranted. In the instant case, according to the FIR, the injured Charanjeet Singh was brutally assaulted by the petitioners with sword, knife and other objects. According to the petitioners, there is a cross case, which implies that an incident had occurred. Now, whose version is reliable? Is it a free fight? Or one party has assaulted and another defended, these all questions fall for consideration of the Investigation Officer. These matters cannot be examined in these proceedings. Therefore, no interference is warranted and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

7.

Insofar as, permission to surrender by petitioner nos. 1 and 3 is concerned, they are free to do so. For that purpose, as such, no direction is required.

8.

The writ petition is dismissed.