Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1182/2011 of NAGENDRA BRAHMCHARI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR on 29 December 2011
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application no. 1182 of 2011 Nagendra Brahmchari Chela Brahmleen Anand Swaroop Brahmchari R/o Mokshdham Bhupatwala P.S. Kotwali, District Hardwar Present address Gurudham Ahsram Matra Sadan Road, Kankhal, Jagjitpur District Hardwar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application no. 1182 of 2011
Nagendra Brahmchari Chela BrahmleenAnand Swaroop BrahmchariR/o Mokshdham BhupatwalaP.S. Kotwali, District HardwarPresent address Gurudham AhsramMatra Sadan Road, Kankhal, JagjitpurDistrict Hardwar
…..…Petitioner
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home DehradunDehradun
2. The In-charge Station House Officer(Jajbir Singh Pundir)
Jwalapur, District Haridwar
……….Respondents
Mr. S.C. Bhatt, Advocate, present for the petitioner.Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State.
Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Heard.
2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C..), the petitioner has sought quashing of the charge sheet arisen out of crime no. 411 of 2007, State vs. Nagendra Brahmchari, relating to offence punishable under section 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Jwalapur, District Hardwar.
3. Perusal of the charge sheet shows that gang was being operated under the leadership of the petitioner with one Munnawar Hasan and Matloob. The petitioner has a criminal history of the years 1999, 2002 and 2005.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the cases of the years 1999, 2002 and 2005. It is also alleged that earlier in the crime in question final report was submitted, but later allegedly under influence of certain persons charge sheet is said to have been filed. In reply to this, learned counsel for the State submitted that the matter was reinvestigated and thereafter charge sheet was filed.
5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case.
6. Accordingly, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., is dismissed summarily.
Parul