Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 170 (UTT)

SARIK AHMAD v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2018-04-04

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon'ble V.K. Bist J. This C482 petition has been filed by the applicant for quashing the charge sheet dated 10.02.2017 (Annexure No.2) and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1222 of 2017, State vs. Sarik Ahmad pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M. 2nd , Dehradun. 2. First information report was lodged by the opposite party no.2-complainant on 16.10.2016 at P.S. Patel Nagar District Dehradun against the applicant with the allegation that applicant told the complainant that he is the owner of a plot and he wants to sell it. Applicant made an agreement with the complainant on 17.06.2016 and received Rs.50,000/-from the complainant. On 13.10.2015, he again received Rs.1,40,000/- from the complainant. But later on, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that applicant is not the owner of the plot and he cheated the complainant. On the basis of the FIR, a criminal case no.359 of 2016 has been registered at P.S. Patel Nagar, District Dehradun against the present applicant. The Police has investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet on 10.02.2017 against the applicant. On the basis of the charge sheet, learned A.C.J.M. IInd Dehradun registered a Criminal Case No.1222 of 2017 and passed the summoning order under section 420 I.P.C. on 27.03.2017. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the instant case. He submits that offence under Section 420 of IPC is not made out against the applicant and he never cheated the complainant. He submits that learned lower court without considering the material available on record wrongly summoned the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that that now the parties have entered into compromise and the matter has amicably been settled. He annexed the copy of the settlement deed as Annexure No.3 to the petition. 4. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. 5. In my view, this is not a fit case where process of law has been misused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that the High Court should interfere in rarest of the rare cases. This Court does not find that this case comes under that category. Charge sheet has been filed and the Court has issued summoning order to the applicant. The applicant should appear before the Court concerned and should say whatever they want to say. This Court does not find that this case comes under that category. Charge sheet has been filed and the Court has issued summoning order to the applicant. The applicant should appear before the Court concerned and should say whatever they want to say. The C482 petition is dismissed. But considering the fact that parties have entered into compromise, it is provided that if applicant appears and moves bail application before the court concerned, the Court concerned shall decide the bail application sympathetically, preferably same day.