AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravindra Maithani, J
Petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No. 222 of 2020, under Sections 341, 147, 148, 323, 504, 307 IPC, Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.
Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record.
According to the FIR, on 18.09.2020, when a Rahul Pokaria, Manish Pokharia alongwith their friend Bhupendra Tiwari were going to Khatima, at 4:25 PM, near Mahindra Tractor Agency, Sitarganj Road, Khatima, the petitioner alongwith co-accused surrounded all of them, abused them and thereafter, beaten all of them. Co-accused Ranjit opened fire also, which hit Rahul on his left thigh and other accused including the petitioner assaulted them with lathi, danda and rod.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a young boy aged 18 years and 4 months; he is studying in ITI; he has not specific role; he has been falsely implicated. It is also argued that it is a settled law that the tender age of a person, should be considered at the time of sentencing.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. What is argued are all factual aspects of the matter. FIR discloses commission of offences and the role of the petitioner is also categorical. What is its truthfulness, it is a subject matter of investigation or at trial as the case may be. Insofar as, the tender age of the petitioner is concerned, it may be a consideration at sentencing, but in a writ petition like the instant one at this stage it has no bearing. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
The writ petition is dismissed.