Sandeep Singh And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. No. 0102 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 342, 367, 307, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station - Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar and also for stay of arrest.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

F.I.R. in the instant case was lodged on 09.05.2019 at 09:20 p.m. According to it, on that day at 05:00 p.m. when the first informant (respondent no.3 herein) along with some other person was going towards his home, on the way, petitioners attacked them by swords, due to which, respondent no.3 and others sustained serious injuries. Hearing them screaming, the petitioners fired at them and used caste colour words 'Tum tharu salo mera kuch nahi bigad paoge'. In the interregnum, the petitioners lifted Kuldeep Singh and took him towards the jungle, where they tied him with a tree and assaulted him with Lathi, Danda and sharp-edged weapons, due to which, he got his leg fractured. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that respondent no.4 was also fired at, but he somehow saved his life. There are other details also in the F.I.R.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that F.I.R. is not correctly lodged. Facts have been distorted. It is respondent no.4 and his family members, who forcibly wanted to take possession of the land from the petitioners. They tried to do so at 06:00 a.m. in the morning on 09.05.2019 and this was reported at Khatima Police Station, but Police neither did lodged any report, nor did intervene. According to learned counsel, on that day, again respondent no.4 along with his family members came to the field to forcibly take possession of the land from the petitioners and then the incident occurred, in which both the parties sustained injuries.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners admits that some incident occurred on 09.05.2019 at 05:00 p.m., in which both the parties were injured. In the instant case, F.I.R. definitely discloses commission of cognizable offence. It is a matter of investigation or the trial, as the case may be, to find out the truth, as to who committed, what offence? These and many more questions cannot be discussed and meticulously examined in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the matter and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that directions may be issued that the bail application of the petitioners be decided on the same day, when it is filed.

It is also argued that petitioner no.5 is a minor. Needles to say that all the factual aspects touching up on the culpability of the petitioners or application of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is a matter for investigation. Definitely if petitioner no.5 is a 'child in conflict with law' as defined under Section 2(13) of the Act, the Investigating Officer would follow all the procedures given under the Act.

With the above observation, the petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioners appear before the court below, their bail application may be considered as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.