Neetu And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record. Miscellaneous application (IA/2/2022) made therefor, is allowed.

By means of the present C482 application, the applicants have put to challenge the charge-sheet dated 06.12.2021, cognizance/summoning order dated 17.02.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.65 of 2022 State Vs. Neetu and Others, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 and 427 of IPC, Case crime No.400 of 2020 registered with Police Station Bahadarabad, District Haridwar as well as the entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 has lodged an FIR on 09.11.2020 against the applicants alleging therein that on 02.11.2020, applicant No.1, who is neighbour of respondent No.2, has broken the electric meter and on being asked the cause, applicants abused respondent No.2 and also committed maarpeet with him, his wife and mother, due to which, they had sustained injuries on their body. The respondent No.2 through telephonically narrated the said incident to police station who has sent the police force on the spot. Thereafter, they all were got medically examined at Government Hospital. After lodging the FIR, applicants filed a criminal writ petition before this Court bearing No.638 of 2021, which was disposed of on the admission stage in the light of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 vide order dated 09.04.2021. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of various persons and filed the charge-sheet against the applicants on 06.12.2021. Thereafter, learned Magistrate has summoned the present applicants to face trial vide order dated 17.02.2022 under the aforementioned offences. Thus, the applicants are before this Court.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the present case just for village rivalry; they have no previous criminal history or conviction to their credit. Learned counsel for the applicants further contended that the respondent No.2 has prior enmity with the applicants, due to which, he does not want that applicant No.2 doing his government job peacefully, as the applicant No.2 was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Khatola, Block Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, vide order dated 18.11.2021. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that on the fateful date of incident, no electric meter was broken by applicant No.1 nor the respondent No.2 has made complaint to the Electricity Department for replacement of the electric meter.

Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the Investigating Officer on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidences found cogent and credible evidence against the applicants, therefore, filed the charge-sheet under the aforementioned Sections. He further submits that Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments hold that in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court will not enter into any finding of facts or hold a parallel trial. Moreover, the applicants have a remedy to raise all their plea before the learned trial court during the framing of charge and get themselves discharge from all the aforementioned Sections.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record, it transpires that prima-facie from the FIR, the offences alleged against the applicants, are made out and there are various disputed question of facts. This Court while invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot go into the disputed question of facts as alleged. In order to make out a case for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicants have to satisfy the Court that even if the entirety of the case of the prosecution has taken as true, no case is made out. But, here this is not a case, therefore, this Court doesn’t incline to interfere into the matter.

Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.