2025:UHC:1628 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528 No.214 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Sahil Mullick, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. In this criminal misc. application under Section 528 B.N.S.S., applicant has sought quashing of charge sheet dated 16.08.2024, summoning order dated 13.01.2025 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2170 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3. It transpires that an F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no.4 against the applicant, who is a Gynaecologist, regarding her negligent behaviour in conducting operation of his wife, due to which, his wife succumbed to death. Upon investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicant. Learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the applicant vide order dated 13.01.2025. Thus, feeling aggrieved, applicant has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and vexatious and has been lodged with a view to wreak vengeance against the applicant. He further contends that applicant is innocent, therefore, summoning order and entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed. 2025:UHC:1628 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that 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. He 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. 6. This Court finds substance in the submission raised by learned State Counsel. Whether applicant is guilty or not cannot be decided in this criminal misc. application. Thus, there is no scope for interference. 7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 10.03.2025 Arpan