Vinod Kumar & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

By means of present C482 application, applicants have put to challenge the charge-sheet dated 24.11.2020; summoning order dated 18.12.2021, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.6495 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand vs. Vinod Kumar & another, under Section 420 IPC, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Udham Singh Nagar.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 lodged an FIR on 02.09.2020 with Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar against the applicants with the allegations that applicants took loan against the property of Rs.11 lakhs and housing loan of Rs.7 lakhs from the Punjab and Sind Bank, Rudrapur by mortgaging the property in the name of applicant no.2. The said property came in the name of applicant no.2 by way of sale deed executed by applicant no.1 in her favour. It is further stated in the FIR that when the bank officials enquired about the original sale deed, applicants told that the said sale deed was missing and they also filed a missing report of the aforesaid sale deed. It is also stated in the FIR that after some time, respondent no.2 came to know that applicant no.1 had taken a loan from the Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, Branch Sakania Mod, Gadarpur by mortgaging the original sale deed of the same property, for which, the applicant no.1 had given the missing report. Applicant no.1 had not re-paid the loan of Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, Branch Sakania Mod, Gadarpur.

After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted by the police against the applicants on 24.11.2020 under Section 420 IPC. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar took cognizance on the charge-sheet and summoned the applicants on 18.12.2021 in Criminal Case No.6495 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand vs. Vinod Kumar & another.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant have falsely been implicated in the instant case. He further submits that charge-sheet was filed against the applicants on the basis of the statement of the complainant and there is no independent witness of the entire incident.

Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that applicant has committed an offence of cheating and the trial court after appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly summoned the applicant.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire documents available on record.

From perusal of the FIR as well as the material available in the charge-sheet, prima facie, the commission of cognizable offence is made out against the applicants as they committed cheating, by taking two loans from different banks on one sale deed. Hence, the cognizance is rightly taken by the learned trial court and the applicants are rightly summoned.

In this view of the matter, this Court does not want to interfere in the matter as the law is very clear on the point that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to in the rarest of the rare cases. Accordingly, the present C482 application fails and the same is dismissed.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.