Sandeep vs State of Uttaranchal

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—By means of this petition moved u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1881 of 2005, State v. Vinod & Ors, relating to offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 506 IPC, PS Jawalapur, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and the counter affidavit.

Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged by one Ishrar Ahmad at Police Station Jawalapur, which was registered as Crime No. 215/2004 relating to offences punishable u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 506, 307 IPC. The said report was registered at the police station on 8.6.2004 at 10.15 am. Perusal of the First Information Report (copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the petition) discloses names of Vinod S/o unknown, Sanjay S/o unknown, Praveen S/o unknown and Rajkumar S/o unknown. It does not disclose name of any Sandeep S/o Narendra Singh (present Petitioner).

The Petitioner''s case is that in the chick report in the column of accused, name of Sandeep S/o Mahaveer figures (though no such name is mentioned in the FIR). On this ground, it is prayed that the investigating agency has wrongly filed chargesheet against the present Petitioner who was not named in the First Information Report.

It is settled principle of law that investigating agency is not bound only by the names mentioned in the First Information Report, and it can file chargesheet against anyone provided the evidence has been collected against such person, to make out an offence, to face the trial.

No doubt, there appears a clerical error in the First Information Report reproduced in the chick report as there is no mention of ''Sandeep'' in the contents of the FIR, but the name of Sandeep does figure in the column of accused along with other co-accused Vinod, Sanjay, Praveen and Rajkumar. Name of Sandeep is also mentioned in the entry made in the General Diary, which further corroborates the clerical error in reproducing the First Information Report in the chick report. The only dispute raised by the Petitioner is that father of ''Sandeep'', who is named, is mentioned as Mahaveer in the General Diary and in the column of accused in the chick report, but the name of the father of the present Petitioner is Narendra Singh.

In the opinion of this Court, it is a disputed question of fact which cannot be examined by this Court whether the name ''Sandeep'' S/o Mahaveer mentioned in the General Diary and in the column of accused in the chick report, refers to the present Petitioner or not, against whom chargesheet is filed. In its jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC, this Court cannot appreciate such facts. It is for the trial court to see whether the person named in the First Information Report is the same person against whom chargesheet is filed or not, if any such dispute is raised by the accused.

For the reasons as discussed above, this Court does not find any force in the petition.

The petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is dismissed with the observation that the Petitioner shall be at liberty to raise the plea as to the identity of the accused named in the column of accused in the chick report vis-�-vis that against whom chargesheet is filed by the Investigating Officer. It is further observed that if the Petitioner Sandeep S/o Narendra Singh surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay.

Interim order dated 23.8.2005 passed by this Court is hereby vacated.

Registry is directed to inform the court concerned.