Rohit vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the charge-sheet No.222 of 2023 dated 04.10.2023, cognizance/summoning order dated 12.03.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar along with other consequential orders in Criminal Case No.1646 of 2023 State Vs. Rohit, for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 338 and 279 of IPC, 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 respondent No.2 has lodged an FIR on 05.11.2022 at Police Station I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar against unknown persons with the allegations that an unknown dumper which was being driven very rash and negligently hit three persons, of which one was crushed and killed instantly and one succumbed to his injuries at the hospital. Thereafter, respondent No.2 along with his family members did protest in a nearby highway alleging that police isn’t taking sufficient steps to find out the driver of the dumper and because of this protest, S.I. filed FIR u/s 147 and 341 IPC against them for wrongfully obstructing the highway.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that surprisingly in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded after 11 months, respondent No.2 implicated the applicant stating that it was because of the motorcycle driver, the applicant his relatives were killed. He further submitted that the respondent No.2 stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he had lodged the FIR against the unknown dumber because of instigation of fellow villagers.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the examination of medical reports will prove that injuries occurred can’t be caused by a motorcycle. He further submitted that there is an eye witness who deposed that the applicant was himself injured in the said accident and is himself one of the victims. He also submits that the police submitted the impugned charge-sheet to save its face, as it hasn’t been able to find the concerned dumper driver.

Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet on the basis of oral evidence and statement of the respondent No.2-complainant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., as he found cogent and credible evidence against the applicant in commission of crime. On the basis of which summoning order was rightfully passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

I have perused the FIR, charge-sheet and entire material available on record. Since the offences lodged against the applicant are very serious in nature, therefore, this is not a case where the Court should interfere with. Moreover, this Court in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not in a position to sift the evidence and when prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and the charge-sheet has been submitted, this Court cannot entered into the merits of the case at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only be proved during trial.

Accordingly, the present C482 application is dismissed.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.