SANDEEP Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 CrPC, is preferred to quash the order dated 4.12.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 4080 of 2017, State v. Sandeep and Another, under Sections 452, 307/34, 120-B IPC, and the order dated 29.5.2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, in Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2018.

(2.) Background facts of the case, necessary to be noted for deciding the present criminal miscellaneous application are:-

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants argued that in order to frustrate the trial proceeding against Baljor and others, respondent no. 2, who is their close relative, moved the application under Section 156(3) CrPC; police found that the said application was misleading; as per the respondent no. 2, the place of occurrence is the house of Baljor, while according to the site plan, prepared in the case registered by the applicants' side, the place of occurrence is different i.e. the Shiv Brick Kiln from where the bloodstained mud and slippers of deceased Sonu @ Sanjay were also recovered; and, since on the FIR lodged from the side of applicants, the police investigated the matter and found the incident narrated therein to be true and submitted the chargesheet, therefore, the incident as narrated by the respondent no. 2/complainant cannot be believed. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that in the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, one Mahak Singh was also made the accused but in the revision preferred against the order passed on the said application, respondent no. 2 did not implead Mahak Singh as a respondent.