JUDGMENT :

VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J.

1. This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. (as the procedural law was then) to quash the charge sheet dated 20.08.2020 (Annexure-11) along with cognizance order dated 23.10.2020 (Annexure-12) along with entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2020 pending before Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal titled as, State Vs. Rajeev Gaur & Others, U/s 307, 323, 384, 506 IPC & Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 so far as it relates to the petitioner and further to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that this FIR is a counterblast of the FIR lodged by the friend of the petitioner/accused-Rajeev Gaur against Mahendra Bisht and Shailendra Bisht; that, the FIR is delayed one; that, false medical report of the injured Sanjay Negi was prepared; the petitioner/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case; that, there is no allegation of using caste indicating words against the petitioner as alleged in the FIR as well as statement of alleged victim Sudhir Kumar under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. but the trial court overlooked the said aspect of the matter; that, no offence under Sections 307 , 506, 323, 384 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out against the petitioner/accused; that, the police did not properly investigate the matter and submitted the charge sheet in a very routine manner, that, the impugned cognizance order, charge sheet as well as the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction, illegal and, therefore, liable to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would also submitted that he had prayed for stay of arrest, therefore, he may be granted liberty to move an appropriate application so that the petitioner could not be arrested till the date of appearance before the trial Court.

4. Per contra, Counsel for the State opposed the C-482 petition on the grounds that it is frivolous and the same cannot be decided by the High Court at this stage.

5. Counsel for the State would further submit that in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others , 2021 SCC Online SC 315, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically stated that there should not be stay on the arrest unless and until there is some strong ground for stay of arrest. Counsel for the State would further refer to the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sachin Garg Vs. State of U.P. and another , (2024) SCC Online SC 82 and referred paragraph no. 6 and 7 of the said judgment, which is reproduced as under:

“6. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), a three-judge Bench of this Court examined the factors which were to be considered by the High Court for quashing an F.I.R. at the threshold, relating to factors which would apply to a proceeding which forms the subject-matter of the present case. Referring to the judgment in the case of R.P. Kapur (supra), principles for quashing were set down as:

“10.1 The first case on the point which is required to be noticed is the decision of this Court in the case of R.P. Kapur (supra). While dealing with the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the earlier Code (which is pari materia with Section 482 of the Code), it is observed and held that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561 of the earlier Code cannot be exercised in regard to the matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code; the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice; ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of th