Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 309 (UTT)

Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-07-04

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. By means of all these criminal misc. applications, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been invoked. Since, the issue raised in all these criminal misc. applications is the same, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. However, purely for the sake of convenience, the facts of the Criminal Misc. Application No. 290 of 2016 are being taken into consideration. 2. The applicant before this Court is the complainant in F.I.R. No 158 of 2015, which has been registered under Sections 323/427/506/147/395 of I.P.C. at P.S. Mukhani, Haldwani, District Nainital against some named and some unnamed persons. The applicant/complainant, who is the Director of a Hospital lodged a complaint alleging that his hospital was ransacked by some unruly elements injuring many of the hospital staff as well as the doctors and destroying the property of the hospital as well. Consequently, after investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the police against as many as 17 persons. Subsequently, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani took cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 506, 147 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Uttarakhand Medicare Service Persons and Institution (Prevention of Violence of Damages to the Properties) Act, 2013. The accused persons subsequent to the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate have filed Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2016, in which the learned Sessions Judge, in its revisional power has stayed the proceedings by its order dated 08.03.2016. Cognizance order was also challenged by other accused in separate criminal revisions, wherein the learned Sessions Judge vide its order dated 08.03.2016 and 11.03.2016 stayed the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant/complainant has challenged these orders passed by the learned Revisional Court by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC. 3. This Court has stayed the operation and effect of the order of the Revisional Court vide order dated 18.03.2016 and issued notices to the private respondents. The private respondents have also put in appearance by their respective counsel. 4. This Court has been informed that as far as the trial court is concerned, presently the proceedings are going on. Applicant is being represented by Mr. H.C. Bisht, Advocate, State is being represented by Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Brief Holder and the private respondents are being represented by Mr. Saurav Pandey. 5. 4. This Court has been informed that as far as the trial court is concerned, presently the proceedings are going on. Applicant is being represented by Mr. H.C. Bisht, Advocate, State is being represented by Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Brief Holder and the private respondents are being represented by Mr. Saurav Pandey. 5. In view of the above, nothing further needs to be said at this stage. It is, however, made clear that in any case there was no stay to the proceedings before the trial court. The trial court shall expedite the hearing and pass an order as early as possible. 6. In view of the aforesaid, all the criminal misc. applications stand disposed of.