Disposed

Shailendra Sharma v. State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC28 Apr 2015C482/1670/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal proceedings, this Court granted interim directions staying action against an applicant summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. pending a counter-affidavit from the respondent State, clarifying that the trial was not stayed for other accused.

What did the court decide?

No action pursuant to the impugned order of 10.10.2014 to be taken against the applicant till the next date of listing.

Shailendra Sharma Vs State Of Uttarakhand — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Uttarakhand HC (2015)

¶1

C-482 No. 1670 of 2014

¶2

U.C. Dhyani, J.

¶3

Mr. H.C. Pande and Mr. B.S. Koranga, Advocates for the applicant.

¶4

Mr. Navnish Negi and Mr. N.S. Kanyal, Brief Holders for the respondent State.

¶5

Accused Dharni Dhar Sharma, Dhirendra Sharma and Shaleen Sharma are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 30 / 27 of the Arms Act in the court of I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital. In such sessions trial, evidence of PW1 Chhaya Devi was recorded on 12.09.2014 and 15.09.2014. In her deposition, which was recorded on 12.09.2014, PW1 stated that on the exhortation of Dharni Dhar, Dhirendra and Shailendra, Shaleen Sharma fired upon her son, as a consequence of which, her son sustained injuries. PW1 also deposed on 15.09.2014 that all the four accused were present at the place of incident. On the basis of such deposition, applicant Shailendra Sharma has been summoned to face the trial for the selfsame offences in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the trial court.

¶6

It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was away at Ramnagar at the time of incident, so there was no question of his being present at the place of incident at the time of occurrence. Although present applicant was named in the FIR, but the I.O. has found, during the course of investigation, that there was no involvement of the present applicant, in as much as he was not present at the time of incident, and therefore, did not submit charge sheet against him. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that learned trial court should have first satisfied itself as to

¶7

whether present applicant was really present on the spot or not, and only then, it should have exercised jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the present applicant.

¶8

As prayed, learned counsel for the respondent State is requested to file counter affidavit within six weeks.

¶9

Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be listed after that.

¶10

After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, learned Brief Holder and having gone through the documents brought on record, it is provided, as an interim measure, that no action pursuant to the impugned order dated 10.10.2014 shall be taken against present applicant till the next date of listing. It is made clear that this Court has not stayed the trial, which is going on against the charge-sheeted accused persons.

¶11

Shailendra Sharma v. State Of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Sharma v. State Of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaibhav Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Arvind Kumar Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Pradeep Garg and Another Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Anand Prakash Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Avi Sharma and Another Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Smt Vimlesh Devi and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others