Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 177 (UTT)

Kirat Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-04-25

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Manish Arora, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. D.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Sruti Joshi, Brief Holder for the State and perused the record. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present applicants are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the complainant/respondent No. 2, who married to their son in the year 2009. Unfortunately, the son of the present applicants died in a motor accident in the year 2012 and since then the complainant/respondent No. 2 is staying in her parental home at Roorkee, District Haridwar. However, the applicants are residing in Delhi. 3. A complaint was moved on 20.03.2013 by respondent No. 2 – Smt. Amrit Kaur before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar under Section 406 of I.P.C. against the present applicants. The learned Magistrate, after due process of law as contemplated under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., summoned the present applicants under Sections 406 of I.P.C. vide order dated 23.12.2013. Aggrieved by the said summoning order, the applicants preferred a revision before the learned District Judge, Haridwar where initially a stay was granted to them, but ultimately, the revision was dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2016. Hence, the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. At the stage of summoning the accused under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., all the court has to see whether there is any disclosure of an offence or not, as to fully satisfy itself prima facie whether an offence is made out or not, the accused, in fact, has no right to be heard at that stage. 5. All the same, before the court below in revision, the stand of the accused in any case has been taken into consideration and the court has come to the conclusion, as in view of this Court rightly so, that at the stage of issuing the summons, the applicants have no right to be heard and all that is not required prima facie to the satisfaction of the court. 6. The case is of Section 405 of I.P.C. criminal breach of trust. The allegation by the complainant is that her “STRIDHAN” and other properties, which were entrusted to the present applicants, are not being returned. 6. The case is of Section 405 of I.P.C. criminal breach of trust. The allegation by the complainant is that her “STRIDHAN” and other properties, which were entrusted to the present applicants, are not being returned. Prima facie the case is made out against the present applicants though this has to be seen before the court below. 7. Considering the nature of allegations made therein, however, though no interference is required in the present matter as far as proceedings are concerned, but considering the old age of the present applicants as well as the fact that they reside outside Roorkee (Uttarakhand), a limited interference is being made in the present matter. 8. The applicants are at a liberty to move an application for their discharge, if they so advised, which shall be considered as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, though at an appropriate stage. In case, the applicants appear before the trial court and moves an application for their bail before the learned Magistrate concerned, the same shall be considered as far as possible on the same day itself. In case, the bail application is deferred or rejected for any reason, the learned Magistrate shall consider granting them an interim bail considering the fact that the applicants are not the resident of Roorkee as well as the age of the applicants, in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed.