Uttarakhand High Court
Gauri Shankar Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 24 August, 2022
Author: Sharad Kumar Sharma
Bench: Sharad Kumar Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
C482 Application No.1477 of 2022
Gauri Shankar Gupta .......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & others .....Respondents
Mr. H.C. Pathak, Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate, for the applicants.
Mr. Atul Shah, Deputy Advocate General, with Mrs. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder, for the
State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J (Oral)
Before answering on the five basic issues, which the learned counsel for the applicant has extended in his argument, before this Court, for the purposes of considering the present C482 application, where he has put a challenge to the cognizance order dated 22.10.2021, which was passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.11881 of 2021, "State Vs. Gauri Shankar Gupta", by virtue of which, the applicant has been summoned, for being tried for the offences under Section 420 of the IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR; being FIR No.0539 of 2020, dated 13.10.2020, was registered by the complainant Shri Avinash Kumar, as against the present applicant, complaining thereof, for certain irregularities have been identified to have chanced in depositing the provident fund amount, as against the workman, alleged to have been engaged by him as per the provisions contained under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952.
23. According to the allegations of the FIR, the applicant has got a registration with EPF Authorities, being Registration No.UK/34227, with the Regional Office of the Employees Provident Fund at GMS Road, Kanwali, Dehradun, but on the set of allegations, which had been leveled in the FIR, it was ultimately found that the applicant was found to be operating a single account for the purposes of depositing the employees provident fund contribution, in relation to the workman which were engaged by him, as he was shown to be engaged in the business of supplying the manpower, and as a consequence thereto, since the contribution having been deposited only as against the one account, it was alleged in the FIR, that a sum of Rs.12,52,661/- has been conspired to be embezzled and usurped by the present applicant.
4. The matter was put to investigation, and the charge sheet bearing No.01 dated 28.03.2021, under Section 173 of the CrPC, was submitted before the learned trial court, and as per the contents of the charge sheet, as recorded in its paragraph no.16, following allegations were found to have been proved, which is extracted hereunder:-
"श्रीमान जी मुकदमा उपरो� वादी मुकदमा श्री अिवनाश कुमार कटा�रया पुत्र � हरवंश िसंह िन0 लेन नं0 7 म0नं0 106 केशव िवहार जनरल महादेव िसंह रोड देहरादून उ�राख� हाल कम�चारी भिव� िनिध संगठन �ेत्रीय काया�लय �ोमप्रस्थ जीएमएस रोड देहरादून ( प्रवत�न अिधकारी) �ारा म० अ०सं० 539 / 2020 धारा 420 भादिवव बनाम गौरी शंकर गु�ा पुत्र श्री राम प्रसाद गु�ा िन० खनौली थाना िनगलौल िजला महाराज गंज उ०प्र० के िव�� कायम व दज� कराया गया दौराने िववेचना बयान गवाहान, द�ावेजों के अवलोकन आिद से अिभ० गौरी शंकर गु�ा प्रोपराइटर मैसस� गौरी शंकर पोिलश व�� िल० पीएफ कोड नं0 UK/ 34227 के मा�म से पी.एफ. का पैसा धोखाधड़ी कर प्रा� करने के पया�� सा� ह�। अिभयु� को मा० उ� �ायालय �ारा �रट िपटीशन सं0 77 / 2021 के क्रम म� मा0 उ� �ायालय �ारा 3 धारा 41 क सीआरपीसी के तहत अनुपालन करने का आदेश पा�रत िकये गये आदेश का पालन करते �ए अिभयु� को िदनांक 18.01.2021 को धारा 41क सीआरपीसी के तहत नोिटस तामील कराया गया। तामामी िववेचना से अिभ0 गौरी शंकर गु�ा उपरो� के िव�� धारा 420 भादिव के पया�� सा�्य है। अतः अिभ० का चालान ज�रये आरोप पत्र मा० �ायालय प्रेिषत िकया जाता है। महोदय से िनवेदन है िक सबूत तलब फरमाकर उिचत द� से द��त करने की कृपा कर�।"
5. It was observed therein that after examining the documents, and after recording of the statement of the witnesses, it was ultimately found that the present applicant, who was having the registration of PF Code No.UK/34227, and since he was supposed to deposit the contribution, in fact has committed the fraud by not depositing the amount and as a consequence thereto, it was found that the present applicant were liable to be prosecuted for the offences under Section 420 of the IPC. Hence, as a consequence of the submission of the charge sheet a Criminal Case no.11881 of 2021, "State Vs. Gauri Shankar Gupta", was registered before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in which he was summoned by issuance of the impugned summoning order dated 22.10.2021.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant had argued the C482 application, with the tenacity, as if, the court was exercising its powers, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, while considering the application under Section 482 of CrPC, by making an endeavour to venture to address, calling upon it to appreciate the evidence, and the observations which has been made in the various documents, which has been referred to by the present applicant in support of his defence, while addressing this Court on the 482 application.
47. Learned counsel for the applicant had summarized his argument from the following prospectives:-
(1) That on the perusal of the charge sheet as it was submitted by the Investigating Officer on 28.03.2021, in fact the nature of the offences, which was complaint of in the FIR, could not be apparently established.
(2) He submits that if the FIR is taken into consideration along with the observations which were made by the Investigating Officer, the allegation, was that only one account was being operating for the purposes of depositing the PF contribution of several employees engaged by the applicant. Since the applicant was not directly established to be a solitary beneficiary of the aforesaid deposit made in the single account, the offence complaint of is not made out against the applicant.
(3) He submits, that the applicant cannot be held to be made responsible for the commission of the offences under Section 420 of IPC, because the only role which has been assigned, to the applicant for the purposes of depositing the contribution under the Act of 1952, was that he was only suppose to verify Form 19, which was to be submitted along with the deposits in relation to the respective employees/workman, working with the present applicant.
(4) He submits that the charge sheet, which has been submitted by the Investigating Officer, on 5 which the cognizance has been taken, itself a cursory observations, which had been made and the entire conspicuous of the set of allegations leveled against the applicant, in the FIR was not taken into consideration, as to be an aspect of the deposit made by the applicant was not considered by the Investigating Officer, while recording its finding to the charge sheet.
(5) He submits that the allegation, which had been leveled in the FIR, that the contribution in relation to the various workman was only deposited in the single account, is not established in view of the various Form no.19, which has been referred to by the applicant, which was said to have been submitted by them before the Provident Fund authorities, which related to the different workman for example Mr. Surendra Kumar, Mr. Narottam Kumar and Mr. Narendra Kumar.
(6) He further submits that the SOP, as it was provided by the Employees Provident Fund Organization which laid down the "Standard Operative Procedure", for claims and settlement, the allegation under Section 420 of IPC, would not be made out as against the present applicant for the reason being that the processing of the claim in the Account Section, which constituted to be a part of the SOP, the composite claim form, which in the instant case would be Form 19, was duly remitted in accordance with the mode of remittance, which has been opted out and the reference has been made by the learned counsel for the applicant to clause
(p) of the SOP, which is extracted hereunder:-
6"P. The Mode of remittance opted by the member is entered. The Bank details provided in the application are verified through cancelled cheque/copy of passbook enclosed with the claim form duly attested by the authorized signatory."
(7) Lastly he submits that in order to bring the entire set of allegations leveled against the applicant in the FIR, and the allegations levelled against the applicant do not fall and satisfy the basic ingredients as provided under Section 420 of IPC, because the element of cheating and dishonesty was not a fact which ever stood established by the Investigating Officer, while submitting the charge sheet.
8. This Court cannot be oblivions of the fact that the powers under Section 482, as provided under the CrPC, where an exception for exercise of inherent powers to be exercised by the High Court has been carved out. Section 482 of CrPC, reads as under:-
"482. Saving of inherent power of High Court. - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
9. In fact the provisions contained under Section 482 of CrPC, are only enabling provisions, which rather widens the scope of the exercise of powers by the High Court, in its 7 inherent exercise of the jurisdiction to make such orders, which are or which may be necessary in order to prevent any abuse of the criminal procedural process. Looking to the set of allegations made in the FIR, which was registered against the present applicant on 13.10.2020, and particularly, the manner in which in view of the audit report, which was submitted, the PF Account No.UK/34227, was being operated, it shows, that there was an apparent dereliction, on part of the applicant resulting into defrauding of the EPF organization of a sum of Rs.12,52,661/-, which was the contribution; which was otherwise supposed to be deposited as against the respective accounts by way of Form No.19, before the competent provident fund authorities.
10. It is not even that when the Investigating Officer; when he was carrying the investigation in relation to the set of allegations leveled in the FIR, he had examined as many as 14 witnesses, and on culmination of the investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted, wherein, the allegation of defrauding the amount due to the depositing of the amount of alleged EPF contribution payable by the applicant in a single account was observed to have been made as against the PF Code No.UK/34227 only, and on the perusal of the said record, there was sufficient evidence, which was available before the Investigating Officer for bringing the act of the applicant to be falling to be tried, well within the provisions contained under Section 420 of IPC.
11. Even, if the summoning order dated 22.10.2021, is taken into consideration, the learned Trial Court after considering the contents of the charge sheet, as well as the 8 audit report, which has been referred to in the summoning order, the Court has applied its rationale mind and had observed that the organization of the present applicant had been depositing their contribution in relation to different employees/workman working with the applicant in a single account, which otherwise as per the SOP, it was supposed to be deposited, as against the respective employees, attached with the applicant's organization.
12. The summoning order further observes, that after scrutinizing the documents, which were relied by the Investigating Officer, and the complaint, which has been submitted by the Presiding Officer, the allegation for bringing the offence under Section 420 of the IPC, is being made out, as on an appreciation of the evidence and the findings recorded, there was an apparent fraudulent usurpations of the provident fund contribution to the tune of Rs.12,52,661/-.
13. It was further observed, in the summoning order and charge sheet, that the applicant was issued with the notices under Section 41 (ka) of the CrPC, and it was thereafter, they have been issued with the summons to present themselves before the Court for being tried for the offences, which has been registered against him as Criminal Case No.11881 of 2021.
14. The intensity of the arguments as it has been summarized above, which has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that the enabling provisions, as it has already been observed, which 9 has been conferred upon the High Courts under Section 482 of the CrPC, while exercising its inherent power, it has rather laid down certain restrictions, that the Court should not embark upon the inquiry, and appreciate the evidence, which had been relied by the parties or test its reasonableness to the set of allegations leveled against the applicant, because the sustainability of the allegation would always be a subject to be determined by the trial court, as it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment as reported in 2010 (4) CRI. L. J. 3844, 'State of A.P. Vs. Gourishetty Mahesh and ors.", and particularly it had provided for the ambit of exercise of powers by the High Court, which was an aspect which was dealt with by the High Court within the restrictions as it has been observed in paragraph no.12, of the judgment, which is extracted hereunder:-
"12. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court. It is true that Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, other wise, it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time, Section 482 is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and brings about its closure without full-fledged enquiry. Though High Court may exercise its power relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power should be exercised sparingly. For example, where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused or allegations in the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence or do not disclose commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused or where there is express legal bar provided in any of 10 the provisions of the Code or in any other enactment under which a criminal proceeding is initiated or sufficient material to show that the criminal proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused due to private and personal grudge, the High Court may step in. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 are wide, however, such power requires care/caution in its exercise. The interference must be on sound principles and the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. We make it clear that if the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482."
15. Rather, a conclusion which has been drawn by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it had observed that though powers, which are possessed by the High Court, is very wide enough, but exercising of the powers, has to be done within the certain limits and restrictions, so that it may not result into stepping into an appreciation of the evidence, which may have an ultimate bearing on the trial. Thus, the exercise of inherent powers is to be circumscribed, within certain exercise of self checks and controls and with due care and precaution, to avoid an appreciation of the evidence, as it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant, pertaining to the non sustainability of the charge sheet, because the entire material is alleged to have not been considered by the Investigating Officer.
16. In yet another judgment as reported in 2008 (1) SCC 474, "Hamida Vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and others", where yet again the Hon'ble Apex Court, has reiterated the aforesaid principles pertaining to the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 of CrPC, while exercising the 11 inherent powers of the High Court, which is limited, as it has been held that the exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, has to be extremely exercised by the courts only in those cases where the circumspection is not required to be extended to be ventured into by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers, as against the interlocutory orders, which is yet to be determined by way of culmination of the trial on merits, after providing an opportunity to the accused person. The relevant observation, which has been made by the Hon'ble Apex Court are contained in paragraph nos.6, 7, 8 and 13, of the aforesaid judgment, is extracted hereunder:-
6. We are in agreement with the contention advanced on behalf of the complainant appellant.
Section 482 Cr.P.C. saves the inherent powers of the High Court and its language is quite explicit when it says that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A procedural Code, however exhaustive, cannot expressly provide for all time to come against all the cases or points that may possibly arise, and in order that justice may not suffer, it is necessary that every court must in proper cases exercise its inherent power for the ends of justice or for the purpose of carrying out the other provisions of the Code. It is well established principle that every Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do that real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. As held by the Privy Council in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad MANU/PR/0007/1944 with regard to Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a verbatim copy of the said provision) gives no new powers. It only provides that those which the Court already inherently possesses shall be preserved and is inserted, lest it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the Court are those expressly conferred by the Code and that no inherent power had survived the passing of the Act.
127. It is well established principle that inherent power conferred on the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rare cases and that too to correct patent illegalities or when some miscarriage of justice is done. The content and scope of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were examined in considerable detail in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra and it was held as under:
The following principles may be stated in relation to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court -
(1) That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(2) That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice;
(3) That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.
8. In State v. Navjot Sandhu, after a review of large number of earlier decisions, it was held as under:
29. ...The inherent power is to be used only in cases where there is an abuse of the process of the Court or where interference is absolutely necessary for securing the ends of justice. The inherent power must be exercised very sparingly as cases which require interference would be few and far between. The most common case where inherent jurisdiction is generally exercised is where criminal proceedings are required to be quashed because they are initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction. Most of the cases set out herein above fall in this category. It must be remembered that the inherent power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code or any other enactment for redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. This power should not be exercised against an 13 express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Criminal Procedure Code.
This power cannot be exercised as against an express bar in some other enactment.
13. Before parting with the case, we feel constrained to observe that in spite of repeated pronouncements of this Court that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in rare cases and that too when miscarriage of justice is done, the High Court entertained the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the ultimate result whereof was that the order of bail granted in favour of the accused for an offence under Sections 324, 352 and 506 IPC enured to their benefit even after the offence had been converted into one under Section 304 IPC and also subsequently when charge had been framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused did not remain in custody even for a single day nor did they approach the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate or Sessions Judge for being granted bail under Section 304 or 302 IPC, yet they got the privilege of bail under the aforesaid offences by virtue of the order passed by the High Court. The dockets of the High Courts are full and there is a long pendency of murder appeals in the High Court from which this case has arisen. Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at an interlocutory stage which are often filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, as is the case here, or to delay the trial which will enable the accused to win over the witnesses by money or muscle power or they may become disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of justice."
17. In the judgment reported in 2006 (7) SCC 296, "Popular Muthiah Vs. State", the Hon'ble Apex Court had almost laid down, the akin principles, wherein, in paragraph nos.32 and 34, it has observed that there are two distinct class of cases where an application under Section 482 of CrPC could be stepped to be ventured into by the High Court; in 14 the exercise of its inherent powers, but the powers will have to be exercised within its limitation, the vesting of inherent powers of the High Court does not mean to redress the grievances of the aggrieved party, by venturing into the field of appreciation of the evidence, and that too by substituting its own findings, then too contrary to what has been observed in the charge sheet or in the ultimate summoning order by the court to justify the summoning of the accused person for being tried for the offences complaint of. The aforesaid principles, and the parameters governing the exercise of the inherent powers have been dealt with in paragraph no.30, of the judgment, is extracted hereunder:-
"30 In respect of the incidental or supplemental power, evidently, the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction irrespective of the nature of the proceedings. It is not trammeled by procedural restrictions in that:
(i) Power can be exercised suo motu in the interest of justice. If such a power is not conceded, it may even lead to injustice to an accused.
(ii) Such a power can be exercised concurrently with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction and no formal application is required to be filed therefor.
(iii) It is, however, beyond any doubt that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not unlimited. It can inter alia be exercised where the Code is silent, where the power of the court is not treated as exhaustive, or there is a specific provision in the Code; or the statute does not fall within the purview of the Code because it involves application of a special law. It acts ex debito justitiae. It can, thus, do real and substantial justice for which alone it exists."
18. In yet another judgment which has been rendered by the coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court, as reported in 2000 CRI. L. J. 315 "Kavita Vs. State and others", if paragraph nos.6 and 10 of the said judgment is taken into consideration, it has rather laid down that the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482, could be exercised only 15 when the applicant to the 482 application, has got no other remedy available for the redressal of the grievances qua the observations made in the charge sheet and the summoning order. The relevant paragraph nos.6 and 10, of the judgment, is extracted hereunder:-
"6. On a conspectus analysis of all these authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court, it is absolutely clear that inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. can be exercised for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse the process of the Court and this Court considers its interference absolutely necessary, in that event provision of sub- Section (3) of Section 397 Cr. P.C. cannot limit or affect the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. But it has to be borne in mind that extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. have to be exercised sparingly and it should not be resorted to like the remedy of appeal or revision.
10. In the instant case, a charge sheet was filed by the police under Sections 498-
A/406/376/420/495/120-B/511 IPC. Admittedly, one of the offences in the charge sheet is Section 376 IPC, which is exclusively triable by Sessions Court. On perusal of the impugned order dated 11.9.1995 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, it appears that the learned Magistrate launched on a process of satisfying himself that a prima facie case has been made out on merits. He has assigned reasons about his reluctance to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 495/420/376/120-B/511 IPC. Thus, in effect, the learned Magistrate has discharged the respondents of the aforesaid offences. In my opinion the whole approach of the learned Magistrate in discharging the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 495/420/376/120-B/511 IPC is erroneous inasmuch as under Section 209 of the Code he had no jurisdiction to go into merits even for a prima facie satisfaction. Under Section 209 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has simply to commit the case to the Court of Sessions and the Sessions Judge can 16 discharge the accused under Section 227 of the Code, if satisfied that from the material placed before him, no offence appears to have been made out. Reference in this connection be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Union of India & others (1979 CLR (SC) 14.
Needless to say that Section 228 of the Code enjoins the Sessions Judge to transfer the case to the committal court if he is of the opinion that there is ground for presumption that the accused has committed on offence which is not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. In this view of the matter, I am constrained to observe that the impugned order dated 11.9.1995 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharging the respondents No. 2 to 5 of the offences punishable under Sections 495/420/376/120- B/511 IPC is an affront to law which could not be overlooked as it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, it has become necessary to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. read with Section 483 Cr. P.C. to annul the said manifest illegality."
19. Invariably in all the above cases, it had been laid down, that the High Courts are not supposed to venture into the findings, which had been recorded by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet, which has been taken as to be a basis for the purposes of the issuance of the summoning order by the trial court justifying the prima facie necessity of the trial of the accused person. The reason, which has been assigned by the Magistrate for the purposes of summoning in view of the observations made in paragraph no.10, are only an expression of a prima facie establishment of the case, which requires a trial, and not an objective conclusion.
20. Hence, the summoning order in itself will not be said, to have been attached with any finality because the aspect of the set of allegations, would still be a subject matter 17 to be established only after appreciation of evidence on the culmination of the trial, and 482 application, ought not to be ventured into by the High Courts to derive a positive conclusion pertaining to the propriety of the charge sheet or the summoning order, on the alleged pretext of grounds as raised, herein, by the learned counsel for the applicant pertaining to the insufficiency of the findings, which had been recorded in the charge sheet, which has been submitted in the instant case on the ground that the entire material, as such, was not considered by the Court.
21. So far as the observations made in the FIR pertaining to the depositing of the amount into one single account, which has been sought to be overridden by the applicant by making references to various Form 19, which has been alleged to have been submitted as per the SOP of the Provident Fund Department, the few exemplars which has been relied by the applicant in order to overcome the aforesaid observation, as observed by the Audit Report (2), would still be a subject matter, which is required to be considered about the genuineness of the documents referred to in page nos.64, 66 and 68 of the present 482 application. The reason being that this Court is of the view, that in the exercise of its powers under 482, which is inherent in nature, this Court doesn't have a mechanism, which could be utilized by the High Courts to appreciate the propriety of the documents in order to meet out the observation, an allegation which had been leveled in the FIR and the charge sheet, because that would still be a subject matter, which has to be scrutinized by the trial court.
1822. Hence, owing to the aforesaid reasons, and the limitation of the exercise of powers under 482 of the CrPC, the High Courts under 482; though have got an unfettered inherent powers, but that in itself will not mean to utilize it in the manner as if the High Court was acting as a substitute to the trial court.
23. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the 482 application, as the charge sheet and the summoning order, which are impugned in the present C482 application doesn't fall for consideration while exercising my inherent powers under 482 of CrPC, only after appreciating available evidence on record. Accordingly, the 482 application is hereby dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 24.08.2022 NR/ 19 No. 10--COURT'S ORDER WHETHER THE CASE IS OR IS NOT APPROVED FOSR REPORTING (CHAPTER VIII, RULE 32(2)(b) Description of Case C482 Application No.1477 of 2022 Gauri Shankar Gupta .......Applicant Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others .....Respondents A.F.R. (Approved for Reporting) Not Approved for Reporting (Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 24.08.2022