Decided on August 27,2013

State of Uttarakhand And Ors. Respondents


Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. - (1.) THE applicant, by means of present petition/application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the charge -sheet dated 04.04.2009 as well as summoning order dated 21.04.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in Criminal Case No. 725 of 2009, State vs. Kamla and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. A first information report was lodged by the respondent No. 2 against four accused persons including the present applicant on 25.05.2008, in PS Kankhal, District Haridwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 -B IPC. After the investigation, a charge -sheet for the selfsame offences was filed in the Court. Cognizance on the same was taken and the accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the said order, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant Arjun Singh.
(2.) NOTICE was issued to the respondent No. 2, but despite the service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent. Counter affidavit was however, filed on behalf of respondent No. 1.
(3.) WHEREAS learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there was no involvement of the applicant in the commission of alleged crime, learned AGA drew the attention of this Court towards para 7 of the counter affidavit filed by Station House Officer, P.S. Kankhal, to show that there was involvement of the applicant in the alleged crime. Let us have a look at the contents of the first information report. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (non -applicants) obtained a loan from the respondent -bank. They (accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3) did not deposit the registration certificate and insurance cover of the tractor in the bank. Accused No. 4 (applicant herein) was a guarantor, who undertook to repay loan, if the same was not returned by the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The total allegations in the first information report were directed against the non -applicants. The only statement, which was made against the applicant in the first information report, was that he was a (sic) was responsible for refund of the an amount to the respondent -bank, in case of default by the non -applicants. The applicant also hypothecated his land in favour of the respondent -bank.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.