ANWAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER

Present C482 petition has been filed by the applicant for quashing the cognizance order dated 01.07.2016 alongwith Non-Bailable-Warrant order

dated 04.01.2018 passed in Criminal Case No.2620 of 2016 “State vs. Anwar & others†under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 354 & 325 I.P.C.

passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Dehradun, District Dehradun in relation to Case Crime No.97 of 2016, P.S. Patel Nagar

Dehradun alongwith charge sheet dated 13.04.2016 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.2620 of 2016 State vs. Anwar &

others. Â

The brief fact of the case are that on 25.03.2016 respondent no.2-complainant alongwith her husband Saleem Ahmad moved a joint complaint

before Police Station Patel Nagar stating therein that the marriage of the sister of her husband was fixed for 27.03.2016. In night hours at about 89

p.m. ladies sangeet function was going on. They saw the some boys from Mobin’s family were making video film of the ladies sangeet function.

At this, the complainants and other family members stopped them from doing so. They stopped making video. But on the very next day, in the morning

at about 06:30 a.m., Anwar present applicant, Mobin, Wazid, (Kabadi) and some other persons having lathis and dandas in their hands entered in the

house of the complainants and started marpeet and misbehaved with the ladies. Thereafter FIR was lodged. The matter was investigated and the

charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. After filing the charge sheet the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Dehradun took

cognizance in the matter and summoned the applicant by its one line order.Â

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not in any manner involved in the offence. He submits that the trial court has passed

the cognizance order in mechanical manner. He further submits that the charge sheet, F.I.R. as well as cognizance order is nothing but simply an

abuse of process of law. Â

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties.Â

In my view, this is not a fit case where process of law has been misused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that the

High Court should interfere in rarest of the rare cases. This Court does not find that this case comes under that category. Charge sheet has been filed

and the Court has issued summoning order to the applicant. The applicant should appear before the Court concerned and should say whatever he

wants to say.

The C482 petition is dismissed. However, it is provided that if applicant appears and moves bail application before the court concerned within ten

days from today, the Court concerned shall decide the bail application, expeditiously, preferably same day in accordance with law. For ten days from

today N.B.W. issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.   Â