Mohd. Alim vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 27 September, 2012

[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Uttarakhand High Court

Mohd. Alim vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 27 September, 2012

Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


        Criminal Misc. Application No.1042 of 2012
                     (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.)


Mohd. Alim

                                             ...........Petitioner
                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another

                                           .........Respondents

Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. K.S. Rautela, A.G.A., for the State/respondent no.1.

Admit the petition.

Issue notice to respondent no.2 calling his counter affidavit, if any, within six weeks.

The State may also file it counter affidavit meanwhile.

List thereafter.

Having heard, it transpires that in criminal appeal no.1413/2001, the conviction of petitioner was affirmed by this Court on 12.3.2010 for the offences under Sections 324 and 323/34 IPC but at the same time, his sentence was kept in abeyance with the condition to release him on probation of one year and it was directed that he will keep peace and would also be of good behaviour. Petitioner thereafter furnished the bonds on 25.3.2010 before the court of Sessions Judge, Haridwar as per the directions of High Court. The period, for which he was asked to maintain the peace and be of good behaviour in the society, ran from 25.3.2010 up to 24.3.2011.

On 4.3.2011, a first information report was lodged against him complaining the incident of 13.2.2011 by one Mukammal S/o Jameel R/o Village Sohanpur Gada, P.S. Kotwali Gangnaher, Roorkee. The same is the village of petitioner as well as that of Gufran (respondent no.2). The Investigating Officer culminated the proceedings by way of submitting a final report on 9.3.2011 i.e. just after five days of lodging of the report. A protest petition was thereafter filed by the complainant Mukammal against the submission of final report wherein learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, by passing an elaborate order on 27.7.2011, rejected the final report and took cognizance against the petitioner, inter alia, with other persons for the various offences of I.P.C.

Learned counsel has apprised that pursuant to that order of cognizance, a cross-report, relating to the same incident of 13.2.2011, was lodged on the same day against Gufran and thirteen other accused persons by one Israr Ahmed S/o Haji Mohd. Ilyas which resulted into the submission of a chargesheet and now the Charge has also been levelled by the court of Sessions at Haridwar on 4.6.2012. With the above backdrop, respondent no.2 Gufran moved an application no.59/2012 before the court of Sessions at Haridwar invoking its jurisdiction to punish the petitioner for the alleged violation of the terms and conditions of bond, which he furnished on 25.3.2010 in compliance of judgment passed by this Court on 12.3.2010.

Learned counsel has further argued that moving of application by respondent no.2 is the result of sheer enmity, inasmuch as, in the report no.67 lodged at his instigation by Mr. Mukammal for the incident of 13.2.2011, the name of the petitioner has falsely been implicated, and even that report has met with the fate of submission of a final report.

It is also pertinent to mention that the said report, against the petitioner with few others, was lodged after more than three weeks of the incident whereas the cross-report was lodged by the opposite party the same day. Thus, this report no.67 dated 4.3.2011 is a counterblast to report no.54 lodged by Israr Ahmed same day of the incident and that is why the report no.67, lodged by Mukammal on 4.3.2011, culminated into the submission of a final report.

Learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar on receipt of the said application moved by respondent no.2, has now issued notice to the petitioner to appear and show cause as to why he should not be asked to undergo the sentence which was kept in abeyance, confirming the conviction vide criminal appeal no.1413 of 2001 by this Court.

In the background of facts, as have been explicated above, it is hereby directed that till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Misc. Criminal Case No.59 of 2012, State Vs. Aalim, pending before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, shall remain stayed.

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 27.09.2012 Rdang

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court