2025:UHC:5996 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482/1756/2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Pankaj Semwal, proxy counsel for Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. No representation for respondent no.2. 4. This C-482 application has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned charge-sheet, summoning/cognizance order dated 12.08.2015 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 1408 of 2015 ‘State Vs. Shannwar and 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 02.05.2015 against 40–50 unknown persons, alleging that on the said date, while he was traveling in his official vehicle from Dehradun to Roorkee as part of the security duty of Hon’ble Minister Mr. Kunwar Pratap Singh Chauhan, another car overtook the vehicle, leading to a tussle between the parties. It is further alleged that a traffic jam ensued, local villagers got involved, and some individuals attempted to assault the Hon’ble Minister and his security personnel. 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 would submit that the applicants are labourers residing in the village where the incident occurred and have been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that the applicants were not named in the FIR and that on the date of the incident, they were participating in the wedding (Barat) of a close relative, which had also been trapped in the traffic jam. It is further alleged that the applicants have been implicated under political pressure and due to personal vendetta by the police. 7. He would further submit that the Investigating 2025:UHC:5996 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 applicants have shown disrespect towards the National Flag as well as the Hon’ble Minister. He would further 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. 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.) 10.07.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:5996