IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Interim Relief Application No. 1706/08 Amendment Application No. 5411/08 Urgency Application No. 2518/08 IN Criminal Writ Petition No. 254 of 2008 Ram Adhar Tiwari S/o late Rajendra Tiwari R/o Ward No. 5, Shaktifarm P.S. Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. State Uttarakhand. 2. Senior Superintendnet of Police (S.S.P.) Udham Singh Nagar. ….Respondents. Sri K.S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Amit Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State. Date 17th October 2008 Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C.Pant, J. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. {Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral)} 1. Heard Sri K.S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned A.G.A. present for the State. 2. By means of this writ petition, the writ petitioner has sought following reliefs:- a. issue a writ, order of direct in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to supplement the charge sheet/file a supplementary charge sheet in case crime no. 127.2002 under section 302 I.P.C. state v/s Rajesh Singh Gangwar, P.S. Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, basing the same on the facts of inquiry and statements recorded in the case diary, to secure the ends of justice, as the charge sheet submitted by the respondents in incomplete in nature, which has not been based on the statements and facts and evidence of case diary and/or the respondents may be directed to file a fresh and detailed charge sheet strictly basing upon the facts and statements of the independent witnesses, recorded in case diary and including other accused persons left out uncharged for. b. issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. c. allow this writ petition and award the cost of it in favour of the petitioners. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties it appears that in Case Crime No. 127 of 2002 relating to offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., after investigation, police has submitted charge sheet against some accused (one accused). The grievance of the petitioner is that charge sheet should be filed against some other persons also. This kind of direction cannot be issued as it would amount giving a finding without any investigation and inquiry. This Court is not a court of fact. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has moved an amendment application no. 5411 of 2008 seeking disclosure of certain facts and by way of amendment it is sought to be prayed that the Trial Court should be directed to summon some other accused under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Again we are unable to pass such an order as it is for the Trial Court to see if after recording evidence, it is found that someone is required to be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. or not. Without having evidence on record, we cannot issue such a direction. 5. Therefore, the Amendment Application No. 5411 of 2008 as well as Writ Petition No. 254 of 2008 are hereby dismissed. (B.S. Verma, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 17-10-2008 RMY