MUKESH KUMAR SUNDRIYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sundriyal
State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
Click here to view full judgement.
Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. -
(1.) THE applicant, by means of present application/petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the order dated 12.06.2008 as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case No. 680 of 2008, Mahendra Pal v. J.P. Chamoli and others, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal. An FIR was lodged by Mahendra Pal Singh Rawat (respondent No. 3) against Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sundriyal and Dr. J.P. Chamoli on 11.09.2007, in police station Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 304A, 504 and 506 of IPC. After the investigation, a final report was submitted against Dr. Mukesh Sundriyal and DR. J.P.. Chamoli.
(2.) WHEN the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., in final form, was submitted against Dr. Mukesh Sundriyal, the informant Mahendra Pal Singh Rawat was issued notice. The informant submitted protest petition. Instead of proceeding against accused -applicant under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate entertained the protest petition as objections and rejected the final report. The cognizance was directed to be taken against Dr. J.P. Chamoli and Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sundriyal in respect of offences punishable under Sections 304A, 504, 506 of IPC, under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. It was directed that the case against the accused persons shall proceed as a police case. Aggrieved against said order, Dr. Mukesh Kumar Sundriyal approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. While the proceedings against Dr. Sundriyal were stayed vide order dated 30.07.2008, passed by this Court, the proceedings are going on against Dr. J.P. Chamoli (before the court below).
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned order dated 01.03.2008, principally on the ground that the cognizance ought not have been taken by learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel contended that once the final report was submitted against the applicant, notice to the informant was sent and informant filed protest petition against submission of final report, the only course, which was open to the learned Magistrate, was to proceed under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. and not under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.