ASHU SAGAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No.2158 of 2023

Ashu Sagar ….....Applicant Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Another .….Respondents Present:-

Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Chetna Latwal, Ms. Nipushmola Joshi and Ms. Aditi Dalakoti, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. V.K. Gemini, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

1. By means of this C482 petition, the petitioner has challenged the summoning order dated 10.11.2022 whereby the applicant-Ashu Sagar was summoned to face trial under Sections 504 and 506 IPC alongwith other co-accused persons as well as the order dated 22.09.2023 whereby criminal revision preferred by the applicant along with other co-accused was rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that a criminal proceeding was launched against the applicant in a counter blast, as the private respondent no.2-Vinod Chauhan had constituted a committee and used to collect subscription from the applicant, his family members and other residents of the area. When Vinod Chauhan-respondent no.2 failed to return the money deposited by family members of the applicant and others, the First Information Report was lodged against him in Police Station Ranipur on 12.02.2020 under Section 420 IPC.

4. In the said FIR, the charge sheet was filed against the private respondent no.2-Vinod Chauhan. Father of the applicant i.e. Sher

1

2

Singh @ Lucky, is also one of the victims. It is only for that reason the criminal complaint has been filed, which is only supported by wife of the respondent no.2 as CW-1 under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.

5. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant that during the pre-summoning stage a police inquiry report was called for under Section 202 Sub Section (1) of Cr.P.C. from the concern police station and in that report which has been annexed with the instant C482 petition as Annexure No.6, it is reported by the police that the criminal complaint appears to have been filed by the respondent no.2 in counter blast and in retaliation of the First Information Report under Section 420 IPC filed against the respondent no.2. It has also been mentioned in the police inquiry report that such an incident had not taken place as per the inquiry conducted by the police.

6. Per contra, learned Brief Holder for the State vehemently argued that for summoning the accused, a prima-facie satisfaction is required by the learned trial court and since the complaint was supported by the complainant by recording his statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and statement of his wife under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. as CW-1, the prima facie case appears to have been made out against the applicant, therefore, the applicant is rightly summoned to face the trial. It is further submitted by the learned Brief Holder that the Police Report submitted under Section 202 Sub Section (1) of Cr.P.C. has been considered and the applicant alongwith other co-accused was summoned to face trial.

7. I have gone through the impugned orders as well as the Police Inquiry Report. It does not appear that criminal complaint has been filed by the respondent no.2 in counter blast, for the reason that First Information Report is alleged to have been lodged on 12.02.2020 while the complaint has been filed by respondent no.2 on 01.10.2019.

3

It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that in the statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., name of the applicant- Ashu is not there, and therefore, no case is made out against him.

8. I do not find any force in the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the applicant simply for the reason that even in the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it is clearly stated that applicant came at the house of respondent no.2 including his brothers and two neighbours. In the criminal complaint accused persons have been arrayed as party, namely, Ashu, Neeraj, Dheeraj son of Sher Singh @ Lucky and two other persons Rameshwar Dayal and Satish. The preliminary inquiry at the pre summoning stage is not an inquiry which is suppose to unearth truth from the allegation rather it is an inquiry which is to be done in order to prima facie satisfying the learned trial court as to whether the case is worth enough to summon accused for trial or not.

9. It is further argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is an Assistant Engineer in Government Service in PITCUL, Roorkee and on the date of alleged occurrence he was present in his office and biometric thumb impression is also there in his office.

10. I have considered this argument and this fact also can only be ascertained during the course of trial, when the evidence is adduced by the parties, for the reason that office of the applicant is not so far away from the place of occurrence that even after putting his biometric signature he would not join the company of the co-accused.

11. It has been held time and again by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Catena of judgment that under 482 Cr.PC., this Court cannot have power to sift the evidence.

4

12. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any force in the C482 petition, the C482 petition is dismissed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)

03.11.2023

Arti