2025:UHC:2068 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI 21st MARCH, 2025 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 258 of 2020 Satendra Kumar and three Others .…Applicants Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. ..…Respondents Counsel for the Applicants : Mr.Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Suryakant Maithani, Advocate. Counsel for the State : Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Akshay , no.2 Pradhan, Advocate. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. By means of the present C-482 application, applicants have put to challenge the FIR dated 15.10.2019, charge-sheet dated 17.12.2019 and Special Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2020 (Case Crime No. 593 of 2019), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and Section 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as (“SC/ST Act”), “State Vs. Satendra Kumar and Others”, pending in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR with the averments that he has a 1 2025:UHC:2068 shop, named as Shri Balaji Cement and Sanitary Store, which is situated at GT Road, Manglaur, District Haridwar. In the morning at about 9.30, when his brother-in-law- namely, Billu Arya opened the shop, present applicants along with some 10-12 unknown persons came to his shop and began to hurl the abuses; they also used caste indicative words with a further threat to kill. The accused were armed with sharp edged weapons by which they sabotaged the shop of respondent no. 2 and also took away Rs. 11,300/- and other valuable articles. 3. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted by the police against the applicants on 17.12.2019. Since it was a case related to SC/ST Act, the learned Sessions Judge took cognizance on charge- sheet and summoned the applicants on 09.01.2020 to face the trial. 4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicants submits that applicants have falsely been implicated in the instant case and they had no intention to commit the alleged offences. He also submits that the instant case has been registered against the applicants just to exert pressure upon them to settle the civil litigation, which is pending between the 2 2025:UHC:2068 parties. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that there is credible and cogent evidence available against the applicants. They also submit that the Court below after appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly summoned the accused-applicants. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. After perusal of the records, it is evident that at this juncture that it is a matter related to cross case wherein the criminal litigation has been launched by the parties against each other. 8. At this stage, what this Court could gather is that there is civil litigation regarding the property pending between the parties. Applicants claim their ownership over the said property and, at the same time respondent no. 2 /informant in this case has also claimed title over the said property. It is also an admitted case that the parties have also filed civil suits against each other. 9. The question as to which of the parties is in actual possession over the subject property and who is 3 2025:UHC:2068 its true owner, can only be examined and decided by a Competent Court having jurisdiction over the same. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not supposed to examine the disputed questions of facts, alleged by the parties against each other. This case also requires to be adjudicated in light of the provisions enunciated in the SC/ST Act. 10. Moreover, in the cross cases between the parties, it is also to be seen as to who is the aggressor, which too is a matter to be gone into after perusing the evidence of the parties, which can only be done before the Competent Trial Court. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this C-482 Application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order dated 07.01.2021 granted by this Court is, hereby, vacated. 12. Since the matter-in-question relates to the year 2018-19, the Trial Court is directed to proceed ahead with the trial expeditiously. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 21st March, 2025 Shiksha 4