Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3238 (UTT)

VINAY THAPA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

C528/228/2025 · 2025-03-03

Alok Mahra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C528 No.228 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Nandan Arya and Mr. M.S. Dhapola, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. Akshay Latwal, Brief Holder 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 15.12.2022, cognizance order dated 04.11.2024 and entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.117 of 2024, under Section 8/20/60 of N.D.P.S. Act, pending before learned Special Sessions Judge (N.D.P.S.)/3rd Additional District Judge, Haridwar. 3. It transpires that an F.I.R. was lodged against two persons, who named the applicant as co-accused. Learned Special Sessions Judge summoned the applicant vide order dated 15.12.2022. Thus, feeling aggrieved, applicant has approached this Court. 4. 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. 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.) 03.03.2025 Arpan