2025:UHC:4632 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1892 of 2021 06th June, 2025 Chandrashekhar ……….Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ………Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Mr. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has prayed for quashing of impugned cognizance order dated 12.03.2021 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.462 of 2021, S.I. Kunwar Ram Arya Vs. Chandrashekhar Kashyap, under Section 504 of IPC registered with Police Station Kotwali Ranipur, District Haridwar (F.I.R. dated 17.10.2020 registered as FIR/Case Crime No.0312 of 2020). 2. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that an F.I.R. was lodged by Dr. Mukta Semwal w/o Dr. Devendra Kumar Semwal on 17.10.2020 alleging therein that on 15.10.2020 at about 07:30 P.M. when she along with her husband was in her house, present applicant started abusing her and when her husband opposed to the same, he also misbehaved and abused him. The FIR was lodged as FIR/Case Crime No.0312 of 2020 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC registered with Police Station Kotwali Ranipur, District Haridwar. During course of investigation Section 1 2025:UHC:4632 506 of IPC has been deleted by Investigating Officer/ respondent no.2 and a charge sheet was submitted against the applicant for offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 12.03.2021 took cognizance upon the charge sheet under Section 504 of IPC and registered the case as Criminal Case No.462 of 2021 and learned Magistrate passed the order dated 12.03.2021 on the charge sheet itself. Thereafter on the very same day i.e., on 12.03.2021 the learned Magistrate passed another order directing the present case be registered as complaint case since offence against the applicant was punishable under Section 504 of IPC, a non-cognizable offence and thereafter fixed 05.05.2021 as next date. Thereafter vide order dated 10.08.2021, learned Magistrate referred the case to National Lok Adalat for the purpose of mediation between the parties and summons were issued against the present applicant. On 12.10.2021 learned Magistrate passed an order that summons be issued against the applicant for 28.10.2021 and bailable warrants be issued against the applicant. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the applicant is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence, as he has been falsely implicated in the present case; the applicant had neither abused the informant nor was he present on the spot at the relevant point of time, he has been implicated on the basis of false and fabricated story; there was delay of two days in lodging the FIR, however no explanation of such delay has been given in the FIR. 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 2 2025:UHC:4632 allegations in the F.I.R. against the applicants which issue is required to be looked into by the learned trial court. Moreover of the same incident an FIR was lodged by the applicant-Chandra Shekhar against husband and two sons Luv and Kush of Dr. Mukta Semwal on 17.10.2020, under Sections 354, 427, 504 and 506 of IPC being FIR No.0311 of 2020 registered in Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar. The charge sheet has also been filed in that FIR which is challenged by the accused persons of that FIR in C482 No.1796 of 2022. 5. In this view of the matter since the occurrence of incident is admitted, no case is made out for quashing the entire proceedings of 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