Vijay Nishad vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned. Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record. Delay condonation application (IA/3/2024) made therefor, is allowed.

Supplementary affidavit is taken on record. Miscellaneous application (IA/4/2024) made therefor, is allowed. As per office report dated 11.02.2025, it is reflected that notice has not been served upon the respondent No.2, as the envelope received back with a remark that respondent No.2 has expired.

With the consent of both the parties, the present C482 application is being heard finally.

By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the summoning order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh in Criminal Case No.294 of 2024 State Vs. Vijay Nishad, for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC arising out of the FIR No.100 of 2022 registered with P.S. Kotwali Pithoragarh, along with the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that respondent No.2 has lodged an FIR against the applicant on 02.06.2022 under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. He submits that the applicant was the recovery officer in the Bazaz Finance Company, from where the respondent No.2 had taken a loan, and the applicant had only informed the respondent No.2 to pay the installments regularly, as she failed to pay the installments of the said loan. He further submits that the respondent No.2 has deposited the amount in-question in the account of the applicant only to falsely implicate him.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted by the police against the applicant on 10.11.2022. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh took cognizance on the charge-sheet and summoned the applicant on 15.04.2024 in Criminal Case No.294 of 2024. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present FIR and the Investigating Officer without conducting fair and thorough enquiry submitted the charge-sheet against the applicant, on which the learned Court below in a mechanical way without applying judicial mind, took cognizance, which is totally illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law.

Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the Investigating Officer on the basis of the oral as well as the documentary evidence and statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. found cogent and credible evidence against the applicant in commission of crime, therefore, there is no illegality in passing the cognizance/summoning order by the learned Court below.

Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that during the pendency of the present criminal misc. application, the learned Magistrate has issued bailable warrant on 15.06.2024 against the applicant.

I have perused the FIR, charge-sheet and entire material available on record. Since the offences lodged against the applicant are very serious in nature, therefore, this is not a case where the Court should interfere with. Moreover, this Court in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not in a position to sift the evidence and when prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and the charge-sheet has been submitted, this Court cannot entered into the merits of the case at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only be proved during trial.

Accordingly, the present C482 application is dismissed.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.