Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 361 (UTT)

AMANDEEP SINGH RANDHAWA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2019-05-29

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2019
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. This instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code") has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 20.04.2018, summoning order dated 09.08.2018 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3808 of 2018 (Case Crime No.49 of 2018), State vs. Amandeep Singh Randhawa & another vs. State pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and perused the record. 3. In the instant case, F.I.R. was lodged on 31.01.2018. According to it on 22.01.2018 at about 08:00 p.m. when the first informant along with her daughter-in-law was at home, petitioners entered in the house; abused and threatened them that they would kill the son of the first informant if he does not mend his ways. There are other details also mentioned in the F.I.R. After investigation charge sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that in fact, petitioner no.1 had advanced Rs.4.00 lakhs loan in the month of July 2014 to the son of the first informant and also stood as a guarantor in a loan transaction on 31.05.2014, for which the petitioners are now being summoned by the arbitrator. It is argued that when the loan taken by the son of the first informant was not returned, petitioner no.1 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against him. With regard to F.I.R., it is stated that F.I.R. is delayed and offence under Section 452 IPC is not made out. 5. Whatever have been argued with regard to the case, may be valid defence at an appropriate stage in the trial, but how to appreciate those factual aspects in the petition under Section 482 of the Code. Perhaps such meticulous examination of evidence may not be done at this stage. The F.I.R. from its perusal itself looks very plain. According to it, the petitioners entered in the house of the first informant; abused and threatened the son of the first informant to life. In fact, according to it, the petitioners were looking for the son of the first informant. It discloses commission of cognizable offence. After investigation charge sheet has also been submitted. 6. According to it, the petitioners entered in the house of the first informant; abused and threatened the son of the first informant to life. In fact, according to it, the petitioners were looking for the son of the first informant. It discloses commission of cognizable offence. After investigation charge sheet has also been submitted. 6. Having considered the submission, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view no interference is warranted in this matter and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that direction may be issued to the court below that bail application of the petitioners may be decided on the same day when it is presented. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioners appear before the court below, their bail application shall be considered as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.