2025:UHC:4632 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1796 of 2022 06th June, 2025 Devendra Kumar Semwal and another ………..Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Shakti Saurabh Purohit, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Mr. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present C482 application, the applicants have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. No.311 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020, under Sections 47, 148, 354, 504, 506 and 427 of IPC registered at Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar and impugned Charge Sheet No.1 of 2020 dated 08.11.2020 under Section 504 of IPC and impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 10.08.2022 under Sections 354, 427, 504 and 506 of IPC (against applicant no.2) and Section 427, 504 and 506 of IPC (against applicant no.1), passed by learned IIIrd Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar pending as Misc. Criminal Case No.1852 of 2022, State Vs. Love and others. 2. Facts of the case in a nutshell as per version of F.I.R. are that on 15.10.2020 at about 02:00 P.M. applicant no.2 along with his brother-Luv, used obscene language to my wife – Shalini and did obscene act of holding her hand. On the same day in the evening the applicants along with other persons barged the house of the informant with weapons and tried to break open the 1 2025:UHC:4632 door and damaged the iron-net of the gate. Thereafter investigation was conducted by three Investigating Officers who submitted a Charge Sheet No.1 of 2020 dated 08.11.2020 under Section 504 of IPC against the applicants and one Luv s/o Devendra. Thereafter the informant has filed a protest application on charge sheet and learned Magistrate has registered the charge sheet as misc. criminal case on 06.10.2021. Thereafter learned Magistrate heard the informant on protest application, considered the evidence produced by the informant at the stage of taking cognizance and in furtherance of that learned Magistrate took cognizance against the applicant no.1 under Sections 427, 504 and 506 of IPC and against applicant no.2 and Luv under Sections 354, 427, 504 and 506 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that taking undue advantage of his being a legal practitioner and a son of a renowned politician, respondent no.2 misused the process of law and got the investigation transferred thrice from one Investigating Officer to another. He further submits that impugned cognizance and summoning order passed by learned Magistrate is pervert, arbitrary and bad in law as he has no right to pass such an order while exercising his powers under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. 4. Learned State counsel submits that from perusal of the FIR, on the basis of which a charge sheet was filed after investigation, it is transpired that there are serious allegations in the F.I.R. against the applicants which issue is required to be looked into by the court of law. Moreover wife of the applicant-Devendra Kumar Semwal also lodged an F.I.R. No.0312 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC with 2 2025:UHC:4632 Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar about the same incident which proved the occurrence mentioned in the F.I.R. involved in the present C482 application. 5. In this view of the matter since the occurrence of incident is admitted and there is cross-version of the parties, no case is made out for quashing the F.I.R. and charge sheet including the summoning and cognizance order. 6. This Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot embark upon sifting of the evidence and cannot decide the disputed question of facts, which can only be decided once the evidence is adduced by the parties. Police after due investigation has submitted charge sheet against the applicants and prima facie case is made out against them. It is a trite law that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. shall be used sparingly in “rarest of rare cases”. This case does not fall in the category of “rarest of rare case”. 7. In this view of the matter, the C482 application is dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 06.06.2025 SK 3