SANGEETA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the charge sheet dated 11.09.2014, summoning order dated 15.09.2014, as also the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 357 / 2016, State vs Sangeeta, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 504, 506, 307, 302/34, 120B IPC, P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar.

(2.) A charge sheet was submitted against 11 accused persons, including the applicant, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 504, 506, 307, 302/34, 120B IPC. All but present applicant faced trial. The applicant did not face the trial because, according to learned counsel for the applicant, she was living at some other place and the summons were not served upon her. The case of the present applicant was separated from 10 other co-accused, who faced trial. Charges were levelled against the coaccused under Sections 452, 147, 148, 307, 149, 302, 120B, 504, 506 IPC. As many as 18 prosecution witnesses were examined. None of the prosecution witnesses of fact supported the prosecution story. However, 10 other coaccused were convicted and sentenced accordingly for the offences proved against them. Aggrieved against the same, a criminal appeal was preferred by them before this Court, in which the Division Bench recorded order of acquittal on 15.07.2016. As per the information received by learned counsel for the applicant, the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court has not been challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and, therefore, the same has attained finality.

(3.) It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that had present applicant also faced trial along with 10 other co-accused, she would have met the same fate as was met by them. Learned counsel for the respondent State fairly conceded that the case of the present applicant is on similar footing with those, who were convicted by the trial court, and later on acquitted by the Division Bench of this Court. Had the applicant faced trial, she would have been covered by the same set of evidence, which were adduced against the co-accused. In other words, the case of present applicant and others, who faced trial, is totally identical, and the result would have been the same.