Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1545/2022 on 6 September, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C482 No. 1545 of 2022
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for
the applicant.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Assistant Advocate
General assisted by Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief
Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.
The applicant in the present C482
Application, has given a challenge to the
Chargesheet, being Chargesheet No. 206 of 2022
dated 16th March, 2022, which has been submitted
by the Investigating Officer, on culmination of the
investigation into the set of allegations levelled in
the FIR No. 368 of 2016 dated 8th November, 2016,
whereby, the offences, which had been complained
of, as against the present applicant to be the
offences under Sections 419, 420 and 506 of the
IPC.
The present applicant is named in the FIR
and the set of allegation relates to the money
transaction, which has been referred to therein. But
the question, in the present C482 Application, is
pertaining to the summoning order dated
24.05.2022, to which, cognizance has been taken
for the offences referred to hereinabove, to be tried
by the Trial Court.
This Court is of the view, that looking to the
nature of offences, and particularly, the tenacity of
the arguments, as extended by the learned counsel
for the applicant, it requires to venture into the
merits of the matter, for the purpose of settlement
of the liability, as it has been complained of in the
FIR, which was registered on 26th May, 2015. But
that may not be the scope of Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C., because the Court's dealing with Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot act as a substitute to a
trial for appreciating the evidence in order to arrive
at a conclusion about the prima facie establishment
of evidence complained of.
In the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court as reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773, Satender
Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has dealt with, that in those category of
offences, where chargesheet has been submitted and
cognizance has been taken and which carries the
sentence of less than seven years, it has been
classified under category "A" nature of offences, as
provided in para 3 of the said judgment and the
recourse available to the accused person against
whom the chargesheet has been submitted and
cognizance has been taken has been classified under
Sub-clause (e) of category 'A' of offences, which
provides that the Bail Application of such an
accused person, whose nature of offence falls to be
under category 'A", on his appearance before the
court below, it would be decided without the
accused being taken under custody or by granting
an interim order till the Bail Application itself is
decided on merits.
In that eventuality, the apprehension
expressed by the learned counsel for the applicant
that owing to the issuance of summoning order, in
all probability, on the surrender being made by him,
he may not be arrested, that stands protected
otherwise under Sub-clause (e) of category 'A' of
offences and the parameters as laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil
(Supra).
In that eventuality, the present C482
Application is being disposed of with the liberty left
open for the applicant to surrender himself before
the Court and seeks his recourse, as provided in
para 3 of category 'A' nature of offences under
clause (e) by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender
Kumar Antil (Supra).
Subject to the aforesaid exception, the
present C482 Application, which requires a factual
appreciation being beyond the scope of Section 482
of the Cr.P.C., is being disposed of for enabling the
applicant to resort to the proceedings as laid down
in the judgment of Satender Kumar Antil
(Supra).
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 06.09.2022
Shiv
