CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sachin Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 22 September 2020 · Citation: (2020) 09 UK CK 0049

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 307, 324, 506
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1509 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 367 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Petitioner seeks direction that Police may be directed to investigate further as directed earlier in the case.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

3.

Facts briefly stated are that an FIR No. 627 of 2006, under Sections 307, 324 and 506 IPC was lodged at Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar by the petitioner, in which, after investigation, final report was submitted. But, when the petitioner protested to it, on 02.07.2014, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar passed an order in Misc. Case No. 106 of 2011 (for short "the case") for further investigation of the matter. This order was challenged before this Court in C482 No. 738 of 2014, but order dated 02.07.2014 was confirmed. What is sought is that Police be directed to proceed with further investigation.

4.

On behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that despite order passed in the case for further investigation, which had subsequently been confirmed by the High Court, the Police is not proceeding in the matter.

5.

In fact, what is sought to be implemented is an order passed in the case by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. If order dated 02.07.2014, passed in the case is not being complied with by the Police, the petitioner may bring this fact to the notice of concerned court. Why this Court should pass an order to ensure compliance of an order passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar? When questioned, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner may be given liberty to move such an application. For such purpose, no liberty is required. If this fact is brought to the notice of the court concerned, it may definitely be dealt with in accordance with law. Undoubtedly, interference in the investigation is not made, but when it is question of non compliance of any court's order, that fact has essentially to be brought to the notice of the same court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted and the instant writ petition deserves to be disposed with the above observations.

6.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.