Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Chauhan And Others) Whereby Learned ... on 23 February, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPCRL No. 344, 347 and 350 of 2026
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Shiv Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned AGA with Ms. Shweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. These three writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners Rahul Bhatt, Amit Negi and Sanjay Kumar Jain under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the summoning order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) / Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun in complaint case no. 17 of 2023 (Ajeet Singh Vs. Sanjay Kumar Chauhan and others) whereby learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Rishikesh summoned all the petitioners along with Sanjay Kumar Chauhan and Rishabh Garg the respondents no. 4 and 5 herein for the offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 504, 506 read with Section 120B IPC.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and another (1998) 5 SCC 749, summoning order can be challenged in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance particularly to paragraph 26 and 28 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as under:
"26. Nomenclature under which petition is filed is not quite relevant and that does not debar the court from exercising its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses unless there is special procedure prescribed which procedure is mandatory. If in a case like the present one the court finds that the appellants could not invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226, the court can certainly treat the petition as one under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code. It may not however, be lost sight of that provisions exist in the Code of revision and appeal but some time for immediate relief Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 may have to be resorted to for correcting some grave errors that might be committed by the subordinate courts. The present petition though filed in the High Court as one under Articles 226 and 227 could well be treated under Article 227 of the Constitution.
28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."
5. I have gone through with this judgment and this Court is of the view that summoning order can be challenged also in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are employees of Bridge, Ropeway, Tunnel and other Infrastructure Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd (BRIDCUL). BRIDCUL floated a tender for construction of registration office cum transit camp at Rishikesh, District - Dehradun. In the tender process, Sanjay Kumar Chauhan proprietor of M/s Mahalaxmi Construction was declared as L1 and thereafter, BRIDCUL entered into an agreement with Sanjay Kumar Chauhan proprietor of M/s Mahalaxmi Construction on 20.12.2019. Sanjay Kumar Chauhan proprietor of M/s Mahalaxmi Construction without taking consent from BRIDCUL sublet the contract to complainant - Ajeet Singh. He also pointed that work has already been completed and even possession has been handed over to BRIDCUL and after completion of the work, full and payment of Rs. 10.67 crores has been paid to to M/s Mahalaxmi Construction. He submits that entire cost towards completion project was already given to proprietor of M/s Mahalaxmi Construction - Sanjay Kumar Chauhan but it appears from the complaint that proprietor of M/s Mahalaxmi Construction Sanjay Kumar Chauhan has not paid amount to the complainant. He argued that BRIDCUL is answerable to proprietor of M/s Mahalaxmi Construction Sanjay Kumar Chauhan and not to the complainant sub contractor, since without taking consent from the BRIDCUL, proprietor of M/s Mahalaxmi Construction Sanjay Kumar Chauhan has sublet the contract to Ajeet Singh the complainant. He further submits that in fact dispute is in between proprietor of M/s Mahalaxmi Construction Sanjay Kumar Chauhan and the complainant Ajeet Singh and BRIDCUL is not answerable for making any payment to the complainant, which is evident from the fact that there is no complaint from M/s Mahalaxmi Construction the main contractor.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the learned Magistrate without applying his mind and nature of the allegations made in the complaint and also without scrutinizing the evidence summoned the petitioners.
8. Respondent no. 1 - State is only formal party though represented by Ms. Shweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
9. Respondent no. 2 is the complainant and respondent no. 3 and 4 are the person, who are also implicated as an accused in the complaint case.
10. Issue notice to respondent no. 2 to 4.
11. Steps be taken within a week.
12. List on 23.03.2026.
13. In the meantime, taking into consideration that full and final payment has been made to the main contractor, the effect and operation of summoning order dated 23.04.2025 passed by Civil Judge (JD) / Judicial Magistrate Rishikesh in complaint case no. 17 of 2023 is stayed qua the petitioners.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 23.02.2026 SKS .