Uttarakhand High Court
Hon'Ble Alok Mahra vs Smt. Saroj Bakshi And on 14 May, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C-528 No. 1566 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the applicants.
2. Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
4. The present criminal misc. application is filed with the prayer to set-aside and quash the chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 03.07.2025 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4796 of 2025, State Vs. Smt. Saroj Bakshi and Others, under Sections 404, 420, 506 and 34 of IPC, pending in the court of learned 5th Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the Investigating Officer have submitted the chargesheet and the cognizance have been taken without properly appreciating the evidence which was brought on record inasmuch as the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not made out against the applicants as Late husband of applicant no. 1 has executed a Will by which he has bequeath all his movable and immovable property in her favour. Thus, the offence under Sections 420 of IPC is not made out against the applicants. It is further submitted that several litigations regarding the property owned by husband of applicant no. 1 are pending before the competent Civil Courts.
6. Per contra, Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 would submit that the complainant have lodged an FIR in which it was alleged that the amount, which was lying in the account of the deceased, was siphoned-off/mismanaged by the applicants. After investigation, the Investigating Officer found credible material against the applicants and have preferred a chargesheet under Sections 404, 420, 506 and 34 of IPC and the learned Magistrate have taken cognizance on it. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 that all the grounds, which the applicant has raised before this Court, are matter of trial and during investigation, the Investigating Officer has found that the amount of money deposited in the account of the deceased was transferred from that account without submission of the transmission form.
7. In reply to this, learned counsel for the applicants would submit that there were two demat accounts in the name of the deceased. One demat account being A/c No. 0004441, was a joint account, where the applicant no. 1 was the first holder while in the second demat account being A/c No. 00043813, the applicant no. 1 was the sole nominee. As such, in the account in which she was sole nominee, transmission forms were given and thereafter she was first account holder and trading account was in her name, therefore, she has transferred the amount.
8. To this, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 would submit that even as per the Central Depository Services (India) Limited byelaws, on the death of any one of the account holders, the account is to be closed and thereafter a fresh account is to be opened and no transaction can be done on that account except submission of the form.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. In the present case admittedly husband of applicant no. 1 died on 23.01.2021 and both demat accounts were shown active in the name of deceased till 04.08.2021. The contention of both the parties cannot be deliberated in the present application filed under Section 528 of BNSS and claims and counter-claims cannot be decided. If this Court goes into scrutinizing the claims and counter-claims, then, it would amount to conducting of a mini trial.
11. The truthfulness, reliability and credibility of the material collected during investigation would definitely fall for scrutiny during trial. As stated, at this stage, such examination cannot be done.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference in this matter and accordingly, the present criminal misc. application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Alok Mahra J.) 14.05.2026 Ujjwal