Uttarakhand High Court
24 April vs State Of Uttarakhand Through District ... on 24 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:3020
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1947 of 2022
24 April, 2025
Bilal Khan
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand Through District Magistrate
Almora & another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Birendra Singh Adhikari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.
Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This application preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directed against the order dated 07.09.2022, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora in Criminal Complaint Case No.319 of 2022, Brij Mohan Tiwari vs. Bilal Khan & another and the order dated 23.02.2022, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora in Misc. Application No.66 of 2019, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora.
3. Facts in nutshell are that respondent no.2 herein preferred an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against five persons including the applicant stating therein that on the assurance of the applicant for providing him a loan, he gave two photographs and one ten rupees Non-Judicial Stamp, copy of Aadhar Card and 1 2025:UHC:3020 two bank cheques to applicant. The applicant assured the respondent no.2 that he would get him sanction the loan. Believing on such assurance, on 09.04.2019, aforesaid documents were given by respondent no.2 to the applicant. However, for a long period of time, no loan could be provided. After some period, accused no.4, namely, Shyam Sharma came to him and informed that accused nos.1, 2, 3 & 5, named in the compliant, entered an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- in the bank cheques given by respondent no.2 to the applicant; the said cheques were mortgaged to respondent no.4 and respondent no.4 asked the applicant to make him payment of Rs.2,30,000/- else he would file complaint under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act in the court of Magistrate at Haldwani. On 12.07.2019, accused no.1 and 3 admitted the occurrence and requested some time to give him back his bank cheques by 15.09.2019, but till the date of filing the complaint, no money was returned to the respondent no.2 nor any loan was sanctioned.
4. It was also stated that accused nos.1, 2, 3 & 4, in connivance with accused no.5, by way of forgery and fabrication, fraudently entered an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- in the cheque and got it dishonoured from the Bank with the intention of usurping illegal benefit and money and has filed a case against him in the court.
5. It is the case of respondent no.2 that when he went to police station to lodge the report, no action was taken on his application. Feeling aggrieved, he moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora. On that report, instructions were called from police station, on the basis of which, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora rejected the application under Section 156(3) by its order 2 2025:UHC:3020 dated 15.11.2019. Assailing the said order, respondent no.2 preferred a Revision Petition No.21 of 2019, which was allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Almora, by its order dated 26.02.2020, whereby the order passed by the Magistrate was set-aside and the matter was remanded to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora with a direction to pass a fresh order after hearing the revisionist in view of the conclusion drawn in the aforesaid judgment. Subsequent thereto, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora after hearing the complainant/respondent no.2 allowed his application and directed the matter to be registered as a complaint case by its order dated 23.02.2022. After hearing the parties, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora by its order dated 07.09.2022 summoned the applicant along with one other person to face the trial under Sections 120B and 420 IPC holding that prima facie, the case is made out against the applicant on the basis of evidence adduced before him. Challenging the orders dated 23.02.2022 and 07.09.2022, present C482 application has been filed by the applicant.
6. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that the ingredients of offence under Section 420 IPC are missing; revisional court as well as court of Magistrate has ignored the legal preposition while passing the impugned orders. Even if the entire story of the complainant is presumed to be true, the case of cheating is not constituted against the applicant.
7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel supported the order passed by learned Magistrate of summoning the accused-applicant.
32025:UHC:3020
8. In this matter at the first instance, the Magistrate refused to accept the application moved by the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Challenging the said order, respondent no.2 preferred a revision. The Revisional Court after hearing the parties and perused the evidence allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the trial court to decide the case afresh in view of the observations made in the body of judgment. Subsequently, thereafter the Magistrate again heard the matter and registered the case as a compliant case. By way of elaborate order dated 07.09.2022, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora has summoned the accused applicant to face the trial under Sections 120B and 420 IPC. The trial court also observed that there appeared reasonable grounds to summon the accused for the purpose of trial. The evidence of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as all his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. being PW1 and PW2 were also perused before passing the summoning order.
9. It can be inferred at this stage that merely the order of summoning has been passed against the applicant. The applicant did not appear and subsequently the order of bailable warrant was directed to be issued against the applicant. The applicant is well within his right to adduce his evidence in order to rebut the case of complainant. The same can only be done only after the evidence is produced. This Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has not supposed to conduct an inquiry to reach to the conclusion where the allegations leveled against the applicant are true or not. The allegations leveled against the applicant do Prima facie make out a case of summoning him under Sections 120B & 420 IPC.
10. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that 4 2025:UHC:3020 no interference is warranted. The C482 application is accordingly dismissed.
11. Since the matter is pending for quite long, trial court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.04.2025 AK 5