Uttarakhand High Court
30 December vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 30 December, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2024:UHC:10010
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 940 of 2024
30 December, 2024
Meenakshi Rajput
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Shumayla Zafri, learned counsel along with Ms. Lubhna
Jahan, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present application filed
under Section C528 of the BNSS, 2023, applicant has
prayed to quash the summoning order dated 25.07.2024,
bailable warrants dated 28.11.2024 issued in Criminal
Case No.41 of 2024, State vs. Meenakshi, pending in the
court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Chakrata,
Dehradun.
3. The facts in nutshell are that an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by respondent
no.2 before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chakrata,
Dehradun stating therein that he was having a dispute
with his wife/applicant, due to which, the applicant
along with her parents and two other persons tried to
commit marpeet with the informant and also tried to kill
1
2024:UHC:10010
him, but on the alarm raised by the public at large, they
ran away. In the FIR, the occurrence is of 07.04.2023 at
06:30 p.m. has been mentioned wherein it is stated that
the applicant along with one other lady entered into the
house of informant and broke away the articles kept
inside and attacked with a sharp edged weapon, due to
which, the hand of informant was cut. On that
application, the directions for investigation were passed.
The matter was accordingly investigated and a charge-
sheet was submitted against the applicant under
Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC, whereupon the court of
Judicial Magistrate, Chakrata has taken the cognizance
and summoned the accused to face the trial. Challenging
the entire proceedings, applicant is before this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and carefully perused the entire documents available on
record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the allegations leveled against the applicant are baseless.
No such occurrence has actually taken place and it is a
fit case where the Court should intervene in the matter.
6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel
submits that it is a serious matter wherein the
respondent no.2/informant has sustained injuries at the
hands of applicant and one other person. Even the
witnesses examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have
supported the occurrence.
7. From the papers available on record, it is
ample clear that the allegations have been leveled against
the applicant and on the basis of the statements of
witnesses named in the charge-sheet recorded under
2
2024:UHC:10010
Section 161 Cr.P.C., the occurrence has been supported
against the applicant. The trial court on the basis of
alleged documents and documentary evidence has prima
facie found it a fit case to summon the applicant to face
the trial.
8. In my opinion, it is a disputed question of fact
whether any such occurrence has taken place or not. The
truth of the matter can only be examined after the
evidence is led by the witnesses before the trial court.
This Court is not supposed to embark upon the inquiry
in order to justify the veracity of witnesses. No
interference is warranted at this stage. Accordingly, the
C528 application is hereby dismissed.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
30.12.2024
AK
3