Uttarakhand High Court
C528/1726/2026 of GAFFAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 13 August 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/1726/2026 Gaffar --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Mohd. Imran, learned
UKHC010138392026
2026:UHC:7225
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
C528/1726/2026
Gaffar
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
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. Mr. Mohd. Imran, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned A.GA. for the State.
3. The instant petition is preferred by the present applicant Gaffar, S/o Bundan Khan challenging the proceeding of Criminal Case No. 326 of 2026, State vs. Ikram Khan and others, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge, Kiccha District Udham Singh Nagar wherein present applicant is summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352, 324 (2) of BNS 2026.
4. The proceeding is being challenged on the ground that though the applicant is named in the FIR but no specific role has been assigned to the him, and, furthermore, there is a delay of one day in lodging the FIR but the delay has not been explained and as per the prosecution the assailants have been identified through CCTV footage installed at the place of the incident wherein presence of the applicant at the place of the incident appears to be doubtful. He further argued that there is no evidence with regard to the UKHC010138392026
2026:UHC:7225 motive and intention in order to commit the crime which itself falsify the prosecution case. He further submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate without considering that no prima facie offence is made out took cognizance on the charge sheet in a cursory manner and summoned the applicant to face the trial. Finally he concluded his argument by submitting that the entire proceeding as initiated is an abuse of process of law.
5. On the other side, Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State seriously opposed the instant petition by submitting that all these aspects are completely subject matter of the trial and in the present case after thorough investigation and after collecting all credible evidence charge sheet has been filed.
6. Taking into consideration that all the arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant are completely the subject matter of the trial and on this ground proceeding cannot be quashed and further the inherent power conferred under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 should be exercised cautiously and even from the contents of the FIR no one can say that the proceeding as initiated is an abuse of process of law, hence, I do not find any merit in the instant C528 petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Further, the applicant is granted ten days’ time to surrender before the concerned Trial Court.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
13-08-2026 Parul