2025:UHC:912 SL. No . Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UC482/1126/2016 UHon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. K.S. Bora, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. In this criminal misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicants have sought quashing of charge sheet dated 12.03.2016, summoning order dated 19.04.2016 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 501 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 I.P.C. pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar. 3. It transpires that respondent no.2 filed an F.I.R. against the applicants, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 I.P.C. in Police Station Piran Kaliyar, District Haridwar, on 22.02.2016. Upon investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicants for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 I.P.C. Learned Magistrate summoned the applicants vide order dated 19.04.2016. Thus, feeling aggrieved, applicants have approached this Court. 4. Applicants contend that allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and vexatious and has been lodged with a view to wreak vengeance against the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants further contends that applicants are innocent, therefore, charge sheet, summoning order and entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed. 2025:UHC:912 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that Investigating Officer, after thorough investigation, has filed charge sheet, as evidence collected during investigation was found to be sufficient to prosecute the applicants and whether applicants are guilty or not can be decided only during trial after leading evidence. 6. Learned State Counsel also 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. 7. This Court finds substance in the submission raised by learned counsel for the respondents. Whether applicant is guilty or not cannot be decided in this criminal misc. application. Since charge sheet has been filed against the applicants under Section 147, 148, 323, 504 I.P.C., therefore, they will have to face the trial. Thus, there is no scope for interference. 8. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application is dismissed. Interim order dated 07.09.2016 stands vacated. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 13.02.2025 Mahinder