NARENDRA AND OTHERS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010171592026

2026:UHC:9371
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
with Signatures
C528/2092/2026

Narendra And Others ……… Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhan ……… Respondent

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Nivesh Bahuguna learned counsel

for the applicants.
2. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. Present C-528 application has been filed
seeking quashing of the charge-sheet as well
as the cognizance/summoning order dated
05.04.2023 passed in Criminal Case NO.182
of 2023 ‘State Vs. Narendra and Others’ for
the offences punishable under Sections 452,
323, 504, 506 and 120-B I.P.C. as well as the
entire proceedings of the aforesaid case
pending in the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun along with
the entire criminal proceedings arising
therefrom.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged by
the complainant, wherein the applicants,
along with other co-accused persons, were
named; that, after completion of the
investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted a charge-sheet dated 27.09.2022
against applicant no. 1, Narendra, for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 452,
504, 506 and 120-B of the I.P.C., whereas the
remaining applicants, namely, Surendra,
Kalam Singh and Dharmendra Singh, were

UKHC010171592026

2026:UHC:9371
charge-sheeted only for the offences
punishable under Sections 504, 506 and
120-B I.P.C.
5. He would further submit that, vide the
impugned cognizance/summoning order
dated 05.04.2023, the learned court below
summoned all the applicants for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504,
506 and 120-B I.P.C., without taking into
consideration the distinction between the
offences for which applicant no. 1 and the
remaining applicants had been charge-
sheeted.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants
would further submit that the impugned
cognizance/summoning order has been
passed in a routine and cursory manner,
without due application of judicial mind and
without properly examining the charge-sheet
submitted by the Investigating Officer. He
would contend that, as is evident from the
charge-sheet itself, only applicant no. 1 was
charge-sheeted for the offences punishable
under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 and 120-
B I.P.C., whereas applicant nos. 2 to 4 were
charge-sheeted only for the offences
punishable under Sections 504, 506 and
120-B I.P.C. However, the learned court
below summoned all the applicants for the
aforesaid offences, including Sections 323
and 452 I.P.C., without recording any
reasons for doing so. Accordingly, he submits
that the impugned order suffers from a
patent infirmity and is liable to be set aside.
7. Learned State counsel, while opposing
the C-528 application, does not dispute the
factual position that the Investigating Officer

UKHC010171592026

2026:UHC:9371
had charge-sheeted applicant no. 1 for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 452,
504, 506 and 120-B I.P.C., whereas applicant
nos. 2 to 4 had been charge-sheeted only for
the offences punishable under Sections 504,
506 and 120-B I.P.C. He also does not
dispute that the learned court below, vide the
impugned order, summoned all the
applicants for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 and 120-B I.P.C.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on record.
9. Upon perusal of the impugned
cognizance/summoning order and the
charge-sheet available on record, it is evident
that the Investigating Officer had charge-
sheeted applicant no. 1 for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504,
506 and 120-B I.P.C., whereas applicant nos.
2 to 4 had been charge-sheeted only for the
offences punishable under Sections 504, 506
and 120-B I.P.C. However, the learned court
below, vide the impugned
cognizance/summoning order dated
05.04.2023, summoned all the applicants for
the offences punishable under Sections 323,
452, 504, 506 and 120-B I.P.C.
10. The aforesaid discrepancy appears to
suggest that the distinct allegations and
offences mentioned against the respective
applicants in the charge-sheet may not have
been specifically taken into consideration by
the learned court below. It is well settled that
the learned Magistrate is required to
independently apply judicial mind to the
material collected during investigation and is
not bound by the offences mentioned in the

UKHC010171592026

2026:UHC:9371
charge-sheet. However, the impugned order
does not reflect due consideration of the
distinct allegations against the respective
applicants. Accordingly, the impugned order
is set aside to the extent indicated above, and
the matter is remitted to the learned
Magistrate to reconsider the material on
record and pass a fresh order in accordance
with law.
11. Accordingly, the impugned
cognizance/summoning order dated
05.04.2023, passed in Criminal Case No. 182
of 2023, is hereby set aside. The matter is
remitted to the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Rishikesh, Dehradun, to reconsider the
matter and pass a fresh, reasoned order in
accordance with law, after applying judicial
mind to the charge-sheet and the material
collected during the investigation. It is
clarified that the learned Magistrate may take
cognizance of any offence disclosed from the
material available on record and the
chargesheet, in accordance with law.
12. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, the C-528 application stands
allowed.
13. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.

MAMTA
RANI
(Alok Mahra, J.)
14.10.2026

Mamta


Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430ef9
00bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68911c
a8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA
RANI
Date: 2026.10.16 11:09:20 +05'30'