IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 427 of 2010 1. Mukesh S/o late Vedpal 2. Dhani Ram S/o Lal Singh 3. Suresh S/o Lal Singh 4. Deshraj S/o Patram 5. Bhura S/o Dhani Ram 6. Ashok S/o Dhani Ram 7. Soni S/o Malkhan 8. Shrawan S/o Vedpal 9. Ravi S/o Vedpal 10. Oma S/o Atma Ram 11. Narendra S/o late Sitaram 12. Shrawan S/o late Sitaram 13. Raja S/o late Rajpal All R/o Village Akkarkalan, P.S. Pathari District Haridwar. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through home Secretary, Dehradun. 2. Sri Rakesh Gusai Station House Officer, P.S. Pathari, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 625 of 2010, State Vs. Dhani Ram and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 332, 333, 353, 506, 427 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, and one punishable under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 3) Brief facts of the case are that one Dharmendra Singh, a Village Pradhan of Village Akkarkalan (to which the present petitioners belong) lodged a first information report at 12:20 P.M., on 13.09.2009, in respect of an incident said to have taken place at 11:10 A.M., relating to offences punishable under Section 307, 323, 353, 147 of I.P.C. against seven accused, in which name of present petitioner No. 2 Dhani Ram, petitioner No. 3 Suresh, petitioner No. 4 Deshraj and petitioner No. 5 Bhura also figured. Thereafter, police appears to have gone to the village, but the policemen were surrounded by the villagers and assaulted, and stopped from discharging their public functions. On this, Station House Officer (respondent No. 2) of police station Pathari, lodged first information report which was registered as Crime No. 189 of 2009, relating to offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 332, 353, 3 506, 427 of I.P.C., and one punishable under Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, against petitioner No. 2 Dhani Ram, petitioner No. 4 Deshraj and petitioner No. 5 Bhura, and many others of the Village Akkarkalan. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in respect of same incident two first information reports are not maintainable. It is further pleaded that the petitioners are falsely implicated by the police and booked in the criminal case which amounts to abuse of process of law. However, on going through the two first information reports carefully, I find that there are no two first information reports of the incident. The one incident which is said to have taken place at 11:10 A.M., on 13.09.2009 was lodged by Village Pradhan Dharmendra Singh against his own villagers, which included the names of some of the present petitioners. When the police went to the village in connection with said Crime Number 188 of 2009, the policemen were surrounded by the villagers, and assaulted, in respect of which the Station House Officer of police station Pathari lodged the first information report, registered as Crime No. 189 of 2009, in respect of the incident which has taken place subsequently at 13:40 hours. Both the incidents are separate. As far as the contention that it is an abuse of process of law on the part of the policemen is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that in connection with the first information report of Crime No. 189 of 2009, out of which the impugned charge 4 sheet has arisen, in the incident the villagers are said to have assaulted the policemen with bricks and Lathies, and Head Constable Jagdish Singh Rawat and Constable Narendra Singh suffered injuries, who were taken to the District Hospital, Haridwar, for their medical treatment. 5) In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners, namely Mukesh, Suresh, Ashok, Soni, Shrawan S/o Vedpal, Ravi, Oma, Narendra, Shrawan S/o late Sitaram and Raja surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. May 14, 2010. H. Negi 5