Ankit Mishra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1596 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 742 of 2022


Ankit Mishra                                  ...... Petitioner

                                Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Another            ..... Respondents



Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.



                          JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to

the chargesheet dated 01.11.2021 as well as summoning

order dated 09.11.2021, passed in Criminal Case No.

246 of 2021, State Vs. Rakesh Pandey and two others,

under Sections 420, 120B IPC, passed by learned

Judicial Magistrate, Didihaat, District Pithoragarh ("the

case").

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The case is based on an FIR lodged by the

respondent no.2, (the informant) on 20.03.2020, under

Section 420 IPC, Didihaat, District Pithoragarh.

According to the FIR, on 25.11.2018, a Girish Chand

assured the informant that he would secure job to the

son of the informant and for that purpose, required the

informant to deposit money in the account of Kanhaiya

Bhagat. The informant deposited Rs. 2 lakh in the

account. Subsequently, Girish Chandra called the son of

the informant to Delhi and took Rs. 4 lakh from him.

Girish Chand also gave forged call letter to the son of the

informant and requested him to deposit the remaining

money in the account of the petitioner. The informant

deposited Rs. 4 lakh in the account of the petitioner. The

son of the informant did not secure any job. The

informant then realised that he has been cheated. He

lodged an FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the main accused, Girish Chand and

Rakesh Pandey, both have compounded the offence with

the informant and the case against them has already

been closed. The informant has already received entire

money. Co-accused Ayush Pandey has also given an

affidavit to the Senior Superintendent of Police

Pithoragarh, categorically stating, therein, that the

petitioner is innocent. He had no knowledge that his

account was being misused by the co accused.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that, in fact, the petitioner is innocent. He did

not commit any offence. His account was misused by

Ayush Pandey and Rakesh Pandey. When the petitioner

realised it, he filed a complaint against them in the court

of competent jurisdiction

6. According to the FIR, Rs. 4 Lakh were

deposited in the account of the petitioners. It is the case

of the petitioner that the co accused misused his bank

account. It is also the case of the petitioner that co-

accused Ayush Pandey, who has given an affidavit to

SSP, Pithoragarh deposes therein that the petitioner is

innocent.

7. This is a petition under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code"). The

jurisdiction is much wide, but guided by the principles

of law, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the catena of decisions. If prima facie case is made out,

no interference is warranted. At this stage the matter

may not be scrutinized; appreciation of evidence is to be

avoided at this stage; a mini trial may not be conducted.

A legitimate prosecution is not expected to be stopped at

its threshold.

8. It is not the case of the petitioner that the

amount was not deposited in his bank account. As

stated, according to the FIR, Rs. 4 Lakh were deposited

in the account of the petitioner. Whether petitioner was

innocent or not, it may require scrutiny of the material.

The court wanted to know from the learned counsel for

the petitioner as to how the money was withdrawn from

the account of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has no reply to it as to how the petitioner used

to withdraw the money from his account, in which Rs. 4

Lakh were deposited.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

simply submit that co-accused had been misusing the

account. It is the case of the petitioner that the co-

accused were his room partners. It is also not the case of

the petitioner that he was unaware of his account. How

was he withdrawing money from his account? Was he

using cheque books? Was he using withdrawal vouchers

or ATM cards? And if he was using ATM cards, did not

he come to know that such huge amount was deposited

in his account? And if he came to know about it, what

he did immediately thereafter? These and many more

related questions would require answer during trial so

as to examine the culpability or innocence of the

petitioner. On these aspects, this Court cannot record

any finding at this stage. Prima facie, an offence is made

out against the petitioner.

10. Therefore, there is no reason to make any

interference in the matter. The impugned order is in

accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition deserves

to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

11. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.05.2022 Ravi Bisht