Siftain Ali And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.254 of 2018 "Irfan & others vs. State & others" (for short the revision) and also the order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.151 of 2017 (for short the "case").

Heard and perused the records.

The basis of these proceedings in an F.I.R, which was based on 26.11.2015 at 09:50 p.m. under Sections 149, 323, 504, 506, 324, 307, 386 I.P.C. According to it on that day at 12 noon there was a general body meeting convened in Janta Inter College, Laksar. In that meeting the petitioners and others threatened the first informant as to how he could conduct that meeting and started intervening. When they were asked to maintain decorum and speak when their turn comes, they started abusing the first informant. The first informant took a decision to cancel their membership but thereafter petitioners and others attacked the first informant and others with knife, fists and other things, which were lying there. Due to this Nasir, Wahid and Soaib got injury. In this matter after investigation police did not find any case and submitted final report.

Respondent no.3 filed a protest petition, which was treated as a complaint. After inquiry under Section 200 and 202 of the Code vide order dated 25.04.2018 passed in the case, petitioner and others have been summoned to answer the accusation under Sections 326, 504, 506 IPC and one of the co-accused was also summoned to answer the accusation under sections 326, 504, 506 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that this is nothing but a counter blast of the F.I.R., which was lodged earlier on behalf of the petitioners, in which one of the person Nadim had received grievous injury and his nasal bone was fractured. It is argued that medical of the injured was got prepared by some private doctor and revisional court did not see these aspects; no prima-facie case as such has been made out instead it is argued that it is the petitioners, who sustained injuries in the incident. Therefore, it is argued that complaint ought to have been dismissed but by summoning the petitioners and others an error has been committed. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and petition allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 would argue that prima-facie case has been made out in the case. It is not a case in which summoning order has been passed in a routine, instead, it is argued that in the case at the stage of enquiry under Section 200 and 202 of the Code 10 witnesses including doctor have been examined and thereafter the summoning order was passed.

It is also argued that in fact, the respondent no.3 has also challenged the summoning order in revision with the contention that offence under Section 307 IPC has been made out but they were not successful.

It is true that F.I.R. was lodged by Nadim Ahmad against respondent no.3 and others on 26.11.2015 at 09:30 p.m. and it is also true that in this case, F.I.R. was lodged at 09:50 p.m but merely because F.I.R is subsequent in the point of time, it cannot be said that the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and as a result of counter blast. Facts may not be assessed in this petition under Section 482 of the Code. This Court may examine the material to a limited extent. The summoning order reveals that in fact, it has not been passed in a routine and mechanical manner. As many as 10 witnesses have been examined during inquiry before summoning. Though the medical examination certificate of the injured has not been filed by the petitioners but reference has been made in the summoning order. It makes no difference at this stage, as to who conducted the medical examination; a private doctor or a doctor in the government hospital.

Having considered the submission, under the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and no interference is warranted in these proceedings. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

The petition is dismissed.