2025:UHC:4744 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 220 of 2022 10 June, 2025 Mohammed Saleem Abbasi and Ors. --Applicants Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present C482 application, the applicants have challenged the charge-sheet dated 30.06.2017, summoning/cognizance order dated 26.05.2018, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, in Criminal Case No.2035 of 2018, State Vs. Saleem Abbasi and Others, for the offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 354, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, along with the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. 3. The present C482 application was filed on 02.02.2022 and since then, even notice has not been issued to respondent No.2. 4. The facts in brief are that respondent No.2 lodged an FIR against the applicants under the aforementioned Sections stating therein that on 29.04.2017 at about 02:40 PM, the complainant was alone in her house along with her daughter, her husband Rifakat was in Delhi. Her relations had 1 2025:UHC:4744 already come to an end three years ago in presence of villagers. On that day, applicants seeing alone her in her house, with common intention said that this house belongs to them and started abusing her and committing maarpeet with her and threatening her to kill and to rape. Hearing the noise, neighbours saved her from them. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the FIR, alleged incident was took place on 29.04.2017 at about 02:40 PM, but the FIR was lodged on 04.05.2017 at about 05:30 PM, however the distance of police station from the complainant’s house is only about 03 KM. He further submits that the Investigating Officer without conducting the fair and proper inquiry in the matter, submitted the charge-sheet against the applicants on 30.06.2017 and the learned Judicial Magistrate without applying its judicial mind, in a routine manner, took the cognizance against the applicants on 26.05.2018 and summoned them to face the trial. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee and were released on bail by the learned Magistrate. Respondent No.2 and her husband wants to grab the property of applicant Nos.1 and 2 and make pressure upon them to give their entire property to respondent No.2 and her husband. It is further contended by him that applicant Nos.1 and 2 are very old age persons and applicant No.4 is a handicapped person, as he sustained injury in his spine and the applicant Nos.1 and 2 had already given the share of husband of respondent No.2 to him. It is 2 2025:UHC:4744 also contended by him that the applicants did not commit the alleged offence; respondent No.2 had falsely implicated them in the aforesaid case and alleged false allegations against the applicants, just to mount pressure upon them. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel has supported the prosecution story and submits that the trial has proceeded quite ahead and most of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined, the Investigating Officer after due investigation has duly submitted the charge-sheet, on which the learned Judicial Magistrate has lawfully take cognizance and summoned the applicant. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and on perusal of the FIR and other documents available on record, since, the first information report was lodged and investigated and after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted, this Court doesn’t want to interfere in the matter on such a flimsy ground. This Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot embark upon a fact finding inquiry which can only be done by the learned Trial Court. The allegations and counter allegations can only be proved in the learned Trial Court by adducing evidences by both the parties. This case does not fall in the ‘rarest of rare’ category for invoking the inherent powers of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.06.2025 PN 3 PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331 bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE06 4498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.06.13 15:54:27 +05'30'