Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 174 (UTT)

Vivek Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-04-05

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Present C482 petition has been filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings as well as the charge-sheet no. 199 of 2015, dated 19.10.2015, submitted by the I.O. and P.S. Jaspur, District U.S. Nagar, against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC in FIR No. 92 of 2015 and the order of cognizance dated 12.10.2017, passed by the learned of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District U.S. Nagar in Criminal Case No. 3907 of 2015 whereby the learned court summoned the applicant to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 2. This C482 petition is being filed by the applicant, whereby the cognizance order dated 12.10.2017 is being challenged. Prior to this petition, a C482 petition No. 1199 of 2017 was filed by the applicant before this Court, whereby the order of cognizance dated 18.12.2015 was challenged. The Coordinate Bench of this Court set aside the cognizance order, vide order dated 05.09.2017. 3. The brief fact of the case are that opposite party no. 2, moved a complaint before the Director General of Police Uttarakhand at Dehradun against the applicant stating therein that the applicant has taken money from several people of Augustyamuni, District Rudraprayag on the pretext to provide them jobs in Tehsil offices in District U.S. Nagar. It is stated that the said money was taken by the applicant during the period of November 2008 to January 2009. It is stated that neither the jobs were provided nor the money was returned to these people by the applicant. On the basis of the complaint to D.G.P. Uttarakhand, FIR was registered against the applicant. It is stated that the FIR is not lodged by the person allegedly cheated by the applicant but lodged by the opposite party no. 2; the name of the cheated persons are not mentioned in the FIR. It is stated that the FIR is lodged after a long gap of about 5 and half years and there is no single whisper that at which place and before whom the alleged money was taken by the applicant. The matter was investigated and the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. After filing the charge sheet the learned Judicial Magistrate Kashipur, District U.S. Nagar took cognizance in the matter and summoned the applicant by its one line order. 4. The matter was investigated and the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. After filing the charge sheet the learned Judicial Magistrate Kashipur, District U.S. Nagar took cognizance in the matter and summoned the applicant by its one line order. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not in any manner involved in the offence. He submits that there is no witness to prove that any money has given to the applicant. He submits that the applicant is running a business of tent house at Jaspur Town, District Udham Singh Nagar and the distance between Jaspur and Augustyamuni is about 300 km. He further submits that trial is nothing else than abuse of process of law. 5. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. 6. 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 he wants to say. 7. The C482 petition is dismissed. However, it is provided that if applicant appears and moves bail application before the court concerned within ten days from today, the Court concerned shall decide the bail application, expeditiously, preferably same day in accordance with law. Till then the N.B.W. issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.