JUDGMENT : VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J. 1. This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. (as the procedural law was then) to quash the charge sheet dated 20.08.2020 (Annexure-11) along with cognizance order dated 23.10.2020 (Annexure-12) along with entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2020 pending before Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal titled as, State Vs. Rajeev Gaur & Others, U/s 307, 323, 384, 506 IPC & Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 so far as it relates to the petitioner and further to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that this FIR is a counterblast of the FIR lodged by the friend of the petitioner/accused-Rajeev Gaur against Mahendra Bisht and Shailendra Bisht; that, the FIR is delayed one; that, false medical report of the injured Sanjay Negi was prepared; the petitioner/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case; that, there is no allegation of using caste indicating words against the petitioner as alleged in the FIR as well as statement of alleged victim Sudhir Kumar under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. but the trial court overlooked the said aspect of the matter; that, no offence under Sections 307, 506, 323, 384 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the petitioner/accused; that, the police did not properly investigate the matter and submitted the charge sheet in a very routine manner, that, the impugned cognizance order, charge sheet as well as the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction, illegal and, therefore, liable to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would also submitted that he had prayed for stay of arrest, therefore, he may be granted liberty to move an appropriate application so that the petitioner could not be arrested till the date of appearance before the trial Court. 4. Per contra, Counsel for the State opposed the C-482 petition on the grounds that it is frivolous and the same cannot be decided by the High Court at this stage. 5. Counsel for the State would further submit that in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 4. Per contra, Counsel for the State opposed the C-482 petition on the grounds that it is frivolous and the same cannot be decided by the High Court at this stage. 5. Counsel for the State would further submit that in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 315, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically stated that there should not be stay on the arrest unless and until there is some strong ground for stay of arrest. Counsel for the State would further refer to the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sachin Garg Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2024) SCC Online SC 82 and referred paragraph no. 6 and 7 of the said judgment, which is reproduced as under: “6. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), a three-judge Bench of this Court examined the factors which were to be considered by the High Court for quashing an F.I.R. at the threshold, relating to factors which would apply to a proceeding which forms the subject-matter of the present case. Referring to the judgment in the case of R.P. Kapur (supra), principles for quashing were set down as: “10.1 The first case on the point which is required to be noticed is the decision of this Court in the case of R.P. Kapur (supra). While dealing with the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the earlier Code (which is pari materia with Section 482 of the Code), it is observed and held that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561 of the earlier Code cannot be exercised in regard to the matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code; the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. After observing this, thereafter this Court then carved out some exceptions to the above-stated rule, which are as under: “(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is matter merely of looking at the complaint or the first information report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. (iii) Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under Section 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to Invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained.” 7. In the same decision (i.e. Neeharika Infrastructure Ltd.) (supra), the seven-point edict laid down in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) was also referred to. These are: “102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. These are: “102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 6. Perused the record in the light of above submissions and judgments (supra). 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court has rightly summoned the petitioner/accused to face trial under the relevant section. Furthermore, the issues raised by the petitioner/accused are, apparently, his defence and is matter of evidence and trial and should not be looked into by this Court while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 8. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court has rightly summoned the petitioner/accused to face trial under the relevant section. Furthermore, the issues raised by the petitioner/accused are, apparently, his defence and is matter of evidence and trial and should not be looked into by this Court while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 8. It is trite that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. In view of this Court, this is not the fit case where the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. 9. In view of the above, present C482 petition lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 10. As the proceeding of the case is pending for a long time, therefore, the petitioner/ accused is directed to appear before the court concerned on 01.10.2024 at 10:30 A.M. Trial Court is not required to issue notice of appearance to the petitioner/accused. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent forthwith to the court concerned for ensuring compliance.