2025:UHC:1841 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1716 of 2022 18 March, 2025 Swati Sharma and another --Applicants Versus State Of Uttarakhand and another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Avidit Noliyal, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned D.A.G. with Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent No.1. Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present C482 application, applicants have put to challenge the impugned charge sheet dated 03.03.2021, summoning order dated 04.12.2021 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1643 of 2021 State Vs. Pankaj Sharma and Ors., passed by the learned Second Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC, arising out of FIR No.348 of 2020 registered with P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that respondent No.2 has lodged an FIR against the applicants on 27.10.2020 under the aforementioned Sections. It is further submitted by him that the said FIR is a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the applicant No.1 on 27.10.2020, registered as FIR No.347 of 2020 under Sections 323, 354, 504 & 506 IPC, in which summons have also been issued by learned Magistrate vide order dated 04.12.2021 against 2025:UHC:1841 2 respondent No.2 and his son in Criminal Case No.1647 of 2021 State Vs. Shivam and Ors. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR just to save his skin, there are no independent witnesses of the alleged incident and on bare perusal of the FIR, no specific role and motive of applicants is revealed. Learned counsel for the applicants further contended that charge-sheet was submitted by police without collecting any credible evidence. On which, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons in a mechanical way vide its judgment and order dated 04.12.2021, without applying judicial mind, which is totally illegal and not sustainable in eyes of law. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the Investigating Officer on the basis of the oral as well as the documentary evidence and statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. found cogent and credible evidence against the applicants in commission of crime, therefore, there is no illegality in passing the cognizance/summoning order by the learned Court below. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants in its rejoinder affidavit stated that the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. do not prima-facie prove the offence against the applicants. 7. I have perused the FIR, charge-sheet and entire material available on record. Since the offences lodged against the applicants 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 2025:UHC:1841 3 the applicants 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.) 18.03.2025 PN