2025:UHC:2176 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 748 of 2022 25 March, 2025 Gopal Chand --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Brief Holder for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of present C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the summoning order dated 20.01.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Special Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh in Special Sessions Trial No.03 of 2022, State vs. Gopal Chand (Case Crime No.126 of 2021), under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 1989 as well as to quash the entire aforesaid proceedings of the aforesaid Sessions Trial. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 lodged an FIR stating therein that on 19.07.2021 at about 09:40, when he is going to his room, applicant stopped his car and abused him with caste coloured remarks. To this, applicant’s son started fighting and tore his cloths and also abused him and threatened him for dire consequences and one Vinod Bhatt saved him. It is also stated in the FIR that 1 2025:UHC:2176 respondent no.2 has the audio and video recording of the alleged incident. 3. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted by the police against the applicant on 20.07.2021. Thereafter, the learned Special Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh took cognizance on the charge-sheet and summoned the applicant on 20.01.2022 in Special Sessions Trial No.03 of 2022, State vs. Gopal Chand. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant case. He further submits that no such incident has happened on the alleged date and time. He also submits that since the alleged incident does not come under the ‘public view’, therefore, no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is made out against the applicant. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that applicant has committed a serious offence and the trial below after appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly summoned the applicant. Furthermore, offence under Section 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is prima facie made out against the applicant as he intentionally committed the offence of assault. He took this Court through the statements of witnesses Shri Mahendra Singh @ Chamali and Shri Mahendra Singh Soun @ Babloo Soun recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. annexed with the counter affidavit filed by the State. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire documents available on record. 2 2025:UHC:2176 7. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is discarded for the reason that the eye- witnesses in their statement recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. supported the story of the prosecution that the incident happened on the main road and was witnessed by them. Thus, it happened in “Public View”. 8. From perusal of the FIR as well as the material available in the charge-sheet, prima facie, the commission of cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. The cognizance is rightly taken by the learned trial court and the applicant is rightly summoned. In this view of the matter, this Court does not want to interfere in the matter as the law is very clear on the point that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to in the rarest of the rare cases. Accordingly, the present C482 application fails and the same is dismissed. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 25.03.2025 AK 3