2025:UHC:6809 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482 No.1804 of 2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Faizal Ali, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V. N. Maulekhi, learned DAG for the State. 3. No representation for the private respondents. 4. This C-482 application has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned charge-sheet dated 26.04.2016, summoning/ cognizance order dated 29.06.2016 passed by 2nd Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 1538 of 2016 ‘State Vs. Taukeer & Others’, as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case. 5. Brief facts of the case, as borne from the record are that respondent no.2 lodged an FIR on 27.03.2016 against the present applicants, alleging that on the said date at about 10:00 am., while he along with his friend was coming from the marriage ceremony in his Scooty, enroute the present applicants committed Marpit with him and his friend; that, there were sharp weapons, lathis and dandas in their hands. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the present applicants, and cognizance was taken by the learned trial court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants 2025:UHC:6809 would submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that injuries were found simple in nature; that, after lodging the FIR, the applicants filed criminal writ petition in which the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.04.2016 granted stay of arrest in favour of the applicants. 7. He would further submit that the Investigating Officer, without conducting a fair and proper investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the applicants, and the learned trial court, without due consideration of the facts and materials on record, passed the summoning order. Hence, the entire proceedings are vitiated and liable to be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the application and would submit that the charge-sheet was filed after a thorough investigation and the learned trial court took cognizance based on material available on record. 9. Learned State counsel would further submit that the grounds taken by the applicants involve disputed questions of fact and matters of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated at the stage of invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and are to be dealt with during the course of the trial. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, with caution, and only to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. 2025:UHC:6809 12. Having considered the submissions and the material on record, this Court is of the view that the contentions raised by the applicants are, at best, their defence, and are matters of evidence that can only be appreciated during trial and such issues cannot be examined by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 13. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present application. 14. Accordingly, the C-482 application is dismissed. 15. However, it is clarified that the trial court shall decide the case strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. 16. No order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 01.08.2025 BS BALWAN T SINGH Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a 17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346E B553DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3F A90, cn=BALWANT SINGH Date: 2025.08.04 17:37:24 +05'30'