Uttarakhand High Court
Pankaj Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 9 May, 2019
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
I
Criminal Misc. Application No.547 of 2019
Pankaj Kumar ....... Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & another ....Respondents
Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") for quashing the Chargesheet No.395 of 2018 dated 26.08.2018 in pursuance of FIR dated 28.02.2018 registered as FIR No.0176 of 2018 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 341 & 509 of IPC, P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar and also for direction to quash the summoning and cognizance order dated 07.12.2018 passed by Incharge Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Case No.16466 of 2018 "State vs. Anita Giri and others".
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
3. In this matter an FIR was lodged on 28.02.2018 under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 354 IPC. FIR reveals the relationship between the first informant, co-accused and the petitioner. According to it on 06.11.2017 at about 10:00 a.m. the first informant was going to Haridwar, a Anita Devi alongwith three other persons abused, assaulted and beaten her up. In this matter after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and co-accused Anita Devi.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that FIR is much delayed. The version of the FIR has not been corroborated during investigation, because charge sheet has been submitted only 2 against two persons whereas according to the FIR Anita Devi was accompanied by three unknown persons. There has been no identification.
5. The perusal of the FIR reveals commission of cognizable offences. It is true that in FIR with regard to the incident of 06.11.2017, it is stated that Anita Devi with her three accompanied persons assaulted and beaten the first informant and it is also true that after investigation charge sheet has been submitted only against Anita Devi and the petitioner. Investigating Officer has categorically stated that at the time of incident Anita Devi was accompanied by the petitioner. The effect of delay in lodging the FIR, if any; need for identification and all these issues cannot be considered in these proceedings, under Section 482 of the Code, when categorically the FIR reveals commission of cognizable offence and after investigation the charge sheet has been submitted. As stated, the investigating officer has been specific as to who has committed the offence, therefore, this Court is of view that no interference is warranted in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code and the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that directions may be issued that in case petitioner appears before the Court below, his bail application may be considered on the same day.
7. The petition under Section 482 of the Code is dismissed. However, if the petitioner appears before the Court below, his bail application may be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 09.04.2019 Arti