IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 57/2006 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Intezar Hussain & Another …….Applicants Versus State of Uttaranchal & Others ……Respondents Mr. S.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ahrar Baig, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, for the State. 2nd September, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, prayer has been made to quash and set aside the chargesheet submitted in Crime No. 1955/2004 under Section 332, 353, 504 IPC, PS Haldwani, District Nainital. On the basis of the said chargesheet submitted by the police, a Criminal Case No. 3703/2004, State v. Intezar Hussain & Others was registered by the court below and the applicants were summoned to face the criminal trial vide order dated 1.9.2004. 2. The background facts of the case are that one Intezar Hussain had his wheat field alongside Bareilly road in Haldwani. On 11.4.2004, at about noon time, the said wheat crop caught fire. So the Fire Station based at Kathgodam was telephonically informed by someone. It is also pertinent to mention that there was a petrol pump in front of that wheat field and there was great probability that the said petrol pump might also come under fire. The officials of fire station along with fire extinguishing equipments reached at the spot but they were a bit late in their arrival, and by the time they reached at the spot, the wheat crop standing in the said field got completely destroyed in fire. The allegation is that the owner of the field Intezar Hussain and his daughter Nishat 2 Siddqui lashed out over the fire extinguishing officials. It appears that in order to show their annoyance, the applicants strived to scuffle with the fire officials. 3. One of the officials lodged the FIR against Intezar Hussain and one lady (unnamed). Fire fighting stations are also the wings of the police. After investigation, the chargesheet was submitted against Intezar Hussain and his daughter Nishat Siddiqui, as mentioned above. After submission of the chargesheet, the Magistrate passed the cognizance order on 1.9.2004. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and learned Brief Holder for the State and on perusal of the papers on record, it transpires that the allegations are exaggerated. At the most, the alleged incident was nothing but it was only an expression of annoyance and anger on the part of the applicants as they lost their crop in the said fire and when the fire officials reached at the spot belatedly, then they were orally taken to task by the applicants. It was but natural on their part because they were in anguish feeling themselves helpless before the fire officials over the late arrival as their wheat crop was got ruined in the said fire, which spread rapidly by the fast blowing wind. 5. It appears that the FIR was lodged by the police personnel in order to explain their delayed arrival at the spot and further to satisfy their ego as they were orally taken to task by the hapless accused applicants. Moreover, the FIR was lodged after 24 hours of the alleged incident. Had there been any truthfulness in the allegations made in the FIR, the same could have been lodged immediately after the incident. In these circumstances, the applicants cannot be made to suffer 3 by undergoing the mental agony of facing the criminal trial. Hence, the impugned chargesheet and the cognizance order warrant interference by this Court. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned chargesheet submitted in Crime No. 1955/2004, under Section 332, 353, 504 IPC, PS Haldwani, District Nainital and the cognizance order dated 1.9.2004, passed in Criminal Case No. 3703/2004 are hereby quashed. 7. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 2.9.2011 Prabodh