IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appl. No. 29 of 2002 Richard Emmanuel Dayal S/o Sri R.E. Dayal, R/o 65 /1, Bakral Wala, Police Station Kotwali District Dehradun. ………..Applicant Versus 1. The State of Uttaranchal 2. Sri Nikunj Sharma S/o V.K. Sharma R/o Type –II / 73, F.R.I., Police Station Cantt. District Dehradun. ………..Respondents. Mr. Ramji Srivanstava, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. P.S. Saun, Brief Holder for the respondent State. Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the applicant / petitioner has sought quashing of charge sheet, relating to crime No. 364 of 2000 (copy Annexure -5 to the petition), registered with police station Dalanwala, Dehradun. It appears that a First Information Report was lodged on 16.08.2000, with the police station Dalanwala, Dehradun, that the complainant respondent No. 2, a student, was attacked by 2 some three persons. It is mentioned in the First Information Report that some students standing there named that petitioner Richard Emmanuel Dayal, and his associates and attacked the injured. The police registered the crime and, after investigation, submitted impugned charge sheet against the petitioner. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that in the First Information Report, it is mentioned that a man with spectacles attacked the injured, while in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the injured has clarified that the spectacled person was another person (not the petitioner). It is further argued that in the injury report (copy Annexure -2 to the petition), there is no thumb impression of the injured person. Thirdly, it is also submitted that the petitioner is a brilliant student having excellent academic record, and he had nothing to do with the said incident 4) All these points in the opinion of this Court, can be appreciated by the trial court to examine whether the offence is committed by the petitioner, or not? In its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court is not expected to appreciate half baked evidence to hold whether the petitioner is innocent or not? 5) Therefore, for the reasons as discussed above, this petition is dismissed with the observation that all the pleas relating to innocence of the petitioner raised before this Court, can be raised by him before the trial court. It is further observed that if the petitioner is arrested or 3 surrenders (if not already on bail) before the court concerned, and moves application for bail, his bail applicable shall be heard and disposed of, without unreasonable delay. With these observations, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands disposed of. (All pending applications in this Petition also stand disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. November 01.2006 H.Negi