Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 175 (UTT)

Alok Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-02-13

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The challenge in this petition is made to the Charge-Sheet No.2 of 2016 dated 14.08.2016, under Sections 323 & 504 IPC, along with all proceedings of Criminal Case No.93 of 2016, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file. 3. The record reveals that respondent no. 2 filed a report with Revenue Sub-Inspector, Revenue Circle, Bamangaon, District Tehri Garhwal with regard to some incident dated 04.05.2016. Based on that report, Investigating Officer sought permission to investigate the matter, as it was non-cognizable offence and after investigation submitted a report under Sections 323 & 504 IPC against Mohammad Tazim Khan and Jagannath Pradhan, but did not challan Chandan Singh and Alok Kumar Sharma, who is the petitioner. It appears that the court while taking cognizance inadvertently took cognizance against the petitioner and Chandan Singh who were not challaned by the Investigating Officer and summoned them. This summoning order has been passed in Criminal Case No.93 of 2016, State vs. Chandan Singh & others by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal on 09.11.2016. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in fact, the petitioner has not been charge- sheeted and in the charge-sheet itself, it is categorical stated that he has not been charge-sheeted, despite that, it is argued that he has been summoned, which is bad in the eyes of law. 5. In fact, the petitioner has also challenged the charge-sheet. The Court wanted to know from learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the charge-sheet has to be quashed? What is the ground for it? 6. Learned counsel would reply that the petitioner does not seek quashing of charge-sheet. The petitioner is merely aggrieved by the order of summoning. 7. Learned State Counsel admits that, in fact, the petitioner has not been challaned. Charge-sheet has not been submitted against him. 8. In the charge-sheet, in column no. 2, the petitioner’s name has been recorded. This column relates to the persons who have not been charge-sheeted. In column no. 3, the persons who have been charge-sheeted are named. They are Mohammad Tazim Khan and Jagannath Pradhan. 9. Charge-sheet has not been submitted against him. 8. In the charge-sheet, in column no. 2, the petitioner’s name has been recorded. This column relates to the persons who have not been charge-sheeted. In column no. 3, the persons who have been charge-sheeted are named. They are Mohammad Tazim Khan and Jagannath Pradhan. 9. It appears that, inadvertently, the court instead of taking cognizance and summoning the persons against whom charge-sheet was filed, summoned the petitioner and one more person, who have not been charge-sheeted. Therefore, the order summoning deserves to be quashed and the petition is allowed. But, this Court is of the view that while doing so, the court below should be directed to proceed further, in accordance with law, on the Charge-sheet No.2 of 2016, filed in Case Crime No.2 of 2016, by the Investigating Officer, in the matter. 10. The petition is allowed. 11. The order dated 09.11.2016, by which the petitioner has been summoned in Criminal Case No. 93 of 2016, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal is quashed. 12. The court of Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal shall consider the Charge- Sheet No.2 of 2016, filed in Case Crime No. 2 of 2016, Police Station Pokhri (Kwili), District Tehri Garhwal, afresh, in accordance with law. 13. All the pending applications stand disposed of.