2025:UHC:6023 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482/1768/2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the applicant. 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 31.10.2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 2084 of 2015 ‘State Vs. Udai Veer 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 F.I.R. alleging that he had purchased a cow from one Dippa for a consideration of ₹20,500/-, which was duly paid. After the transaction, the complainant was left with a sum of ₹24,000/-. It is further alleged that when respondent no.2/complainant, along with one Ajam, was transporting the cow to Village Sarchani, the applicant, along with three others, intercepted them, assaulted both the complainant and his companion, and looted the cow and ₹24,000/-. Based on the said F.I.R., the Investigating Officer, upon completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet, whereupon the learned Magistrate took cognizance. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He would further submit that there is a delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R. as the incident allegedly occurred on 12.06.2015, whereas the F.I.R. was registered on 15.06.2015, however, no explanation for such delay has been given, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution story. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that no medical evidence supports the 2025:UHC:6023 allegation of assault, and that the charge-sheet was submitted without a fair and impartial investigation. Moreover, the summoning order was passed without proper appreciation of facts and materials on record. Hence, the entire criminal proceedings are vitiated and liable to be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the application and would submit that the charge-sheet was filed by the concerned Investigating Officer after due and thorough investigation and the learned trial court rightly took cognizance on the basis of material available on record. He would further submit that the grounds raised by the applicant pertain to disputed questions of fact and evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., but are to be considered during trial. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. It is a well-settled principle that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. 11. Having considered the submissions advanced and material on record, this Court is of the view that the contentions raised by the applicant pertain to his defence, which involve matters of evidence to be adjudicated during the course of trial and these issues cannot be examined while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present application. 13. Accordingly, the C-482 application is dismissed. 14. However, it is clarified that the trial court shall decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 15. No order as to costs. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 10.07.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:6023