Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1722/2021 of PARVEZ KHAN Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 31 December 2021
OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 1722 of 2021 Parvez Khan ......Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ….Respondents Present: Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, D.A.G. for the State. Mr. Sayed Nadim, Advocate for the
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1722 of 2021
Parvez Khan
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another
….Respondents
Present:
Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Adhikari, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Sayed Nadim, Advocate for the respondent no.2.
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.
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)
Challenge in this petition is made to the charge sheet dated 20.11.2018 and summoning/Cognizance order dated 29.11.2018 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 7040 of 2018, State Vs. Parvez Khan, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital (for short, “the case”).
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The case is based on the FIR lodged by the respondent no.2 on 19.09.2018. According to it, on that dated, at 4:00 in the evening, the petitioner assaulted the informant with iron rod, due to which, the informant sustained grievous injury on his head. Stitches were to be made. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance taken.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is a cross case. The petitioner has also filed complaint, in which cognizance has been taken.
5. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”), in case, offences are, prima facie, made out, interference is not warranted. Various directions have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
6. In the instant case, FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence. In fact, according to it, the informant sustained injuries and he had to get stitched. After investigation, the Investigating Officer found the story true and filed the charge sheet.
7. The petitioner has not enclosed the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code. Even medical examination report of the informant is also not on record. But, the charge sheet reveals at Sl. No. 6 a witness, the doctor, who conducted the medical examination.
8. FIR in the instant case reveals cognizable offences. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet.
9. Having considered the entirety of fact, this Court is of view that no interference is warranted in this petition and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
10. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
31.12.2021