Jeewan Singh Khetwal vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent No. 1.

By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has prayed for quashing of charge sheet and cognizance order dated 17.9.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar, District Bageshwar in Criminal Case No. 254 of 2010, State v. Jeewan Singh Khetwal, relating to offences punishable u/s 379 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and one punishable u/s 4/21 of Mining Act and 3 P.P.D.P. Act, (for short, the Act).

Facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 2 Bhaskar Joshi, Patwari Dug Bageshwar, District Bageshwar lodged an FIR against the applicant alleging therein that the applicant has prepared and sold concrete by crushing more than 25000 Dhan meters of stones by stone crusher and has thus conducted illegal mining in Khasra 0.02 measuring 0.182 Hectare situated at Tok Daya of Village Bhatnikot, Tehsil Bageshwar. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet against the applicant. On receipt of charge sheet, vide order dated 17.9.2010, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar, took the cognizance of the offence and also summoned the applicant. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court.

From a perusal of the contents of first information report and other papers available in file, prima facie a case under the aforesaid sections is made out against the applicant.

Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety and further on the basis of evidence collected by I.O. during investigation, I am of the view that the charge sheet is rightly submitted against the applicant and the applicant is accordingly rightly summoned by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The C482 application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed in limine.