IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 697 of 2005 Vijay Pal S/o Shri Banarasi R/o Village Shahapur, Sheetalakhera P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar. ….…..…Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Ved Prakash, S/O Shri Gainda Ram R/o 56/31, new Ramnagar, Post Gurukul Kangri, P.S. Jwalapur District Haridwar. 3. First Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. .....……Opposite Parties Shri Nagesh Agarwal, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for respondent no. 2. Shri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 2 Ved Prakash. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (for short Cr.P.C,) the petitioner has 2 sought quashing of the order dated 12.05.2005, passed by Ist Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in criminal case no. 804 of 2003, whereby said court has directed that the case be committed to the court of Sessions for trial. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.11.2001, complainant Ved Prakash’s daughter Pragya aged 17years was going on bicycle at 6:30 a.m. to her school. At that point of time a ‘matador’ hit her in Jwalapur and she died. The complainant Ved Prakash lodged first information report alleging that under a conspiracy the accused murdered his daughter by getting ‘matador’ bearing registration no. U.P.07 1772. However, after investigation police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner Vijay Pal in respect of offences punishable under section 279, 304A and 427 IPC. It appears that during the trial when PW1 Rajpal and PW2 Gyanchand were examined, the Magistrate took the view that since the witnesses are 3 alleging that the deceased was murdered, it passed impugned order directing the case be committed to the court of Sessions for trial in respect of offence punishable under section 302 IPC read with section 120B IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the powers under section 319 CR.P.C, cannot be exercised lightly. Referring to the case of Naresh Giri vs. State of M.P (2007) AIR SCW 7104, it is contended that the powers under section 319 Cr.P.C, that are to be exercised sparingly. However, on going through the papers on record this Court finds that as against the present petitioner Vijay Pal power under section 319 of Cr.P.C, is exercised. Petitioner Vijay Pal was already facing the trial though in respect of minor offences. As such, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere with trial on the above ground. 5. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner Vijay Pal that as found by the police it is a case of simple accident, and not that of murder. In support of his argument 4 he referred to certain papers on the record. But this Court in its jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C, cannot appreciate the disputed questions of fact to hold whether the death of the deceased was caused due to negligence on the part of the driver or it was intentional killing. The trial court is the best forum where this question can be raised. The charge is yet to be framed by the trial court in respect of offences punishable under section 302, 120B IPC. It is open for the petitioner to raise the plea before the trial court at the time before framing of charge, that the offences punishable under section 302 and 120B I.P.C., not made out. 6. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case. Dt. 02.06.2010 Parul (Prafulla C.Pant,J)