Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Uttarakhand High Court

Maha Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 March, 2012

Author: Prafulla C. Pant

Bench: Prafulla C. Pant

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                   NAINITAL
          Criminal Writ Petition No. 186 of 2012


   Maha Singh Bisht,
   S/o Shri Soban Singh,
   R/o Village Dungra, Post Office Bhanoli,
   District Almora.
                                          .........Petitioner
                         Versus

   1- State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary, Home
      Dehradun.
   2- Revenue Police Officer (Patwari)/Investigating
      Officer, Patwari Circle Dungra, Bhanoli, District
      Almora.
   3- Kuldeep Kumar S/o Shera R/o Dhobighat Tallital
      Nainital.

                                                ......Respondents
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate, present for the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, G.A., present for the State.

Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Heard.

2) By means of this petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R. No. 22 of 2012, registered at Patwari Circle, Dungra, Bhanoli, District Almora, relating to offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 3 (1) (X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had enmity with one Shankar Singh, who got lodged the First Information Report through respondent No.3 Kuldeep Kumar, who is admittedly, a resident of Nainital. Neither there was any occasion on the part of the complainant to be in village Dungra, in District Almora, nor it is clear as to how the witness Sachin Kumar Joshi also the resident of Nainital, reached in the village to witness the incident. It is pleaded that it is nothing but abuse of process of law on the part of Shankar Singh through respondent No.3 Kuldeep Kumar to implicate the petitioner in the case.

     4)      Admit the petition.


     5)      Learned counsel for the State prays of and is

allowed six weeks' time to file the counter affidavit.

6) Issue notice to respondent No.3 Kuldeep Kumar, who may also file his counter affidavit within a period of six weeks.

7) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, and after going through the papers on record, as an interim measure, it is directed that petitioner namely Maha Singh Bisht, shall not be arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 22 of 2012, registered at Patwari Circle, Dungra, Bhanoli, District Almora, relating to offences punishable under Section 323, 3 504, 506 of I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 3 (1) (X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, during investigation, provided he cooperates with the investigating agency.(Interim Relief Application No. 1687 of 2012, stands disposed of).

       8)    List after six weeks.



                                     (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
06.03.2012
JM