SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C482 No. 2282 of 2019 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicant. 2. Mr. K.S. Bora, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent no. 1. 3. Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for respondent no.2. 4. In this Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant has sought quashing of charge sheet & summoning order dated 10.08.2018 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1654 of 2015, under Sections 323 & 506 I.P.C. pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haridwar. 5. It transpires that respondent no.2 filed an F.I.R. against the applicant, under Sections 323 & 506 IPC, in Police Station Chowki, Harki Pauri, District Haridwar, on 23.10.2017. Upon investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 323 & 506 I.P.C. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned the applicant vide order dated 10.08.2018. Thus, feeling aggrieved, applicant has approached this Court. 6. Applicant contends that allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and frivolous and has been lodged with a view to harass the applicant. He further contends that applicant is innocent, therefore, charge sheet, summoning order and entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that Investigating Officer, after thorough investigation, has filed charge sheet, as evidence collected during investigation was found to be sufficient to prosecute the applicant and whether applicant is guilty or not can be decided only during trial after leading evidence. 8. Learned State Counsel also submits that there is no scope for interference in the matter, in view of parameters laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, as reiterated in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918. 9. This Court finds substance in the submission raised by learned counsel for the respondents. Whether applicant is guilty or not cannot be decided in this criminal misc. application. Since charge sheet has been filed against the applicant under Section 323 & 506 I.P.C., therefore, he will have to face the trial. Thus, there is no scope for interference. 10. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 13.02.2025 Navin