AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Purohit, J
This C-482 application preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the cognizance and summoning order dated 17.10.2017 and 01.12.2017 along with the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.5032 of 2017, State vs. Kailash Kashyap and Criminal Case No.5968 of 2017, State vs. Tofeek Quereshi, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-II, Haldwani, District Nainital.
Along with the said application, the applicants have also filed the compounding application stating therein that they have settled the matter outside the Court and now, there is no dispute between the parties. Separate affidavits of both the applicants and that of respondent no.2 have been filed with the compounding application. The State has filed its counter affidavit to the C482 application, wherein, it is stated that as many as 7 cases including the present one are registered against the applicant Tofeek Quereshi, details whereof are given below:-
“1. FIR No.58/2002, U/s 457/380/411 IPC-Thana Kiratpur Bijnor.
Criminal Case No.158/2002, U/s 110(G) Cr.P.C.- Thana Kiratpur Bijnor;
FIR No.264/2002, U/s 3(1) Gunda Act-Thana Kiratpur Bijnor;
FIR No.32/2006, U/s 323/324/504/506 IPC-Thana Kiratpur Bijnor;
FIR No.945/2006, U/s 110(G) Cr.P.C.-Thana Kiratpur Bijnor;
FIR No.66/2017, U/s U/s 3(1) Gunda Act-Thana Kiratpur Bijnor;
FIR No.164/2017, U/s 379/411/420/467/468 IPC-Thana Banbhulpura District Nainital.”
Similarly, as against the applicant Kailash Kashyap, the State has brought on record his criminal history which is FIR No.164 of 2017, under Sections 379, 411, 420, 467 and 468 IPC.
In view of the criminal history brought on record by the State in respect of the present applicants, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a case where the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised for permitting the compounding the offences. Accordingly, the compounding application is hereby rejected.
As far as, the merits of the case are concerned in this matter, the report was lodged by respondent no.2 on 15.08.2017 stating therein that his car (Bolero) was stolen by someone which he had parked at about 10:00 PM on 09.08.2017. In that matter, the investigation was carried out on completion of which separate charge-sheet was filed against the applicants. The court below on the basis of submission of aforesaid charge-sheet summoned the applicants to face the trial. The State has filed its counter affidavit, wherein, mentioning the criminal history of the applicants as mentioned in previous paragraph of this judgment, it has clearly been stated that the applicants are habitual of committing the crime. It is also stated that the applicants were having direct involvement in commission of crime on the basis of which, the charge-sheet was submitted. Even at the spot, where the recovery of the vehicle was made, applicant no.1 fled away while applicant no.2 Kailash Kashyap was arrested on the spot who during the course of the investigation confessed his guilt and also disclosed the name of applicant no.1.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned summoning order. It is the duty of the trial court to decide whether the applicants are guilty or not?
In such view of the matter, the present C482 application lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.