C482/1301/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 2366 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AT NAINITAL

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA


                         29th JULY, 2022

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.1301 of 2022



Between:

Parvinder Kumar and Another                             ........Applicants
and

State of Uttarakhand and Another                        ...Respondents



Counsel for the Applicants           :         Mr. Alok Kumar.


Counsel for the State/
Respondent No.1                      :         Mr. Pramod Tiwari,
                                               learned Brief Holder.


Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

The respondent no. 2-Pramod Kumar,

complainant, had filed an application under Section 156(3)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District

Haridwar. The said application was converted into a

complaint. The learned trial court took the cognizance on

the complaint and after inquiry, on 09.12.2013, passed

the summoning order under Sections 420, 467, 468,

120B, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC against the present

applicants-accused persons. The applicants-accused

persons preferred a Criminal Revision against the said

summoning order dated 09.12.2013. On 13.06.2022, the

said Criminal Revision (No. 48 of 2014) has been rejected

by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Haridwar.

2. The applicants-accused persons have invoked

the inherent jurisdiction of this High Court under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to set-aside

the impugned summoning order dated 09.12.2013 and the

judgment dated 13.06.2022, passed by the Revisional

Court.

3. According to the complaint, filed by the

respondent no. 2-complainant, the applicants-accused

persons had demanded `70,000/- from the complainant

while assuring him that he would get a job in Birla Tyre.

The complainant had given `30,000/- to the applicants-

accused persons before the Witness Suresh Pal (CW1) and

the Witness Bhanwar Singh (CW2) on 01.12.2009. On

06.12.2009, the applicants-accused persons had given a

fake joining letter of Birla Company to the complainant,

while the complainant had given the remaining amount i.e.

`40,000/- to them in front of the witnesses. On

19.04.2013, the complainant demanded his money from

the applicants-accused persons. Then, the applicants-

accused persons abused and threatened the complainant

and assaulted him.

4. Heard Mr. Alok Kumar, the learned counsel for

the applicants and Mr. Pramod Tiwari, the learned Brief

Holder for the State.

5. Mr. Alok Kumar, the learned counsel appearing

for the applicants-accused persons, submitted that the

applicants have been implicated in this matter; all the

allegations of the complaint are false; one Sanjay had

received the amount from the complainant; the said

appointment letter was given by Sanjay; the said

appointment letter was not given by the applicants-

accused persons; the complainant and both the witnesses

namely, Bhanwar Singh and Suresh Singh are relatives;

the applicant-accused Rajendra Singh got married to

Vinita, a girl from the family of the witness Bhanwar

Singh; the said marriage created the tension, dispute and

enmity amongst the families of the present applicants and

the witness Bhanwar Singh and due to the said enmity,

the applicants have been implicated in this matter.

6. It is well settled that for the issue of process

against the accused, it has to be only seen whether prima

facie case has been made out. The Magistrate is not

required to go deep into the probative value of the

material on record.

7. In Sonu Gupta vs. Deepak Gupta and

Others; (2015) 3 SCC 424, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has held that at the stage of cognizance and summoning,

the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind only

with a view to take cognizance of the offence, or, in other

words, to find out whether prima facie case has been

made out for summoning the accused persons.

8. After perusal of the record, a prima facie case is

made out against the applicants-accused persons. The

witnesses, under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, have supported the case of the

complainant.

9. The submissions of the learned counsel

appearing for the applicants-accused persons are required

to be tested only at the time of the trial. This Court cannot

hold a parallel trial in an application, under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

10. This Court would not also examine the

genuineness of the allegations/defence version, since this

Court does not function as a Court of Appeal or Revision,

while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Apart from this, in this

matter, at this stage, it cannot be said that there are no

allegations against the applicants-accused persons.

11. Therefore, the application filed, under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has no force,

the said application is liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, the said application, filed under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is dismissed at

the admission stage.

12. Since, the case has to be tried, I make it clear

that the observations made earlier are only for the

disposal of the application, filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. These observations will

not influence the trial court while deciding the case.

13. The said Complaint Case is very old. Therefore,

the learned trial court is directed to expedite the said case

and decide the same, in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible, without granting any

unnecessary adjournment to the either parties.

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dated: 29th July, 2022 AK