Uttarakhand High Court
7 April vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 7 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:2598
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 758 of 2024
07 April, 2025
Rohit --Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vikas Anand and Ms. Gyan Mati Kushwaha,
learned counsel for applicant.
Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauha, learned D.A.G. with
Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State
of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the present C482 application, the
applicant has put to challenge the charge-sheet No.222 of
2023 dated 04.10.2023, cognizance/summoning order
dated 12.03.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar along with other
consequential orders in Criminal Case No.1646 of 2023
State Vs. Rohit, for the offences punishable under
Sections 304A, 338 and 279 of IPC, as well as the entire
proceedings of aforesaid criminal case.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent
No.2 has lodged an FIR on 05.11.2022 at Police Station
I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar against unknown
persons with the allegations that an unknown dumper
which was being driven very rash and negligently hit
three persons, of which one was crushed and killed
instantly and one succumbed to his injuries at the
1
2025:UHC:2598
hospital. Thereafter, respondent No.2 along with his
family members did protest in a nearby highway alleging
that police isn’t taking sufficient steps to find out the
driver of the dumper and because of this protest, S.I.
filed FIR u/s 147 and 341 IPC against them for
wrongfully obstructing the highway.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
applicant that surprisingly in his statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded after 11 months,
respondent No.2 implicated the applicant stating that it
was because of the motorcycle driver, the applicant his
relatives were killed. He further submitted that the
respondent No.2 stated in his statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C. that he had lodged the FIR against the
unknown dumber because of instigation of fellow
villagers.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for
the applicant that the examination of medical reports will
prove that injuries occurred can’t be caused by a
motorcycle. He further submitted that there is an eye
witness who deposed that the applicant was himself
injured in the said accident and is himself one of the
victims. He also submits that the police submitted the
impugned charge-sheet to save its face, as it hasn’t been
able to find the concerned dumper driver.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits
that the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet
on the basis of oral evidence and statement of the
respondent No.2-complainant under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C., as he found cogent and credible evidence against
the applicant in commission of crime. On the basis of
which summoning order was rightfully passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate.
2
2025:UHC:2598
7. I have perused the FIR, charge-sheet and
entire material available on record. Since the offences
lodged against the applicant are very serious in nature,
therefore, this is not a case where the Court should
interfere with. Moreover, this Court in proceedings
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not in a position to
sift the evidence and when prima-facie case is made
out against the applicant and the charge-sheet has
been submitted, this Court cannot entered into the
merits of the case at this stage. Veracity of the version
of prosecution can only be proved during trial.
8. Accordingly, the present C482 application is
dismissed.
9. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.04.2025
PN
3
[ad_1]
Source link