Jenulhaq And Others … vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 13 May, 2025

0
7

Uttarakhand High Court

Jenulhaq And Others … vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 13 May, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
          Criminal Misc. Application No.2512 of 2023
Jenulhaq and others                               .........Applicants

                                 Versus

State of Uttarakhand & another                   .........Respondents

Mr. Pranav Singh, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, AGA for the State.
None is present for respondent no.2.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

This C482 application preferred under Section
482
Cr.P.C. is directed against the summoning order dated
06.01.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar
in Complaint Case No.1946 of 2022, whereby, the applicants
have been summoned to face the trial under Sections 504 and
506 of IPC.

2. Facts in nutshell are that an application was filed
by respondent no.2, herein with the averments that on
09.12.2011, a residential plot area 1500 square feet was
purchased by her from one Nazim Hussain. Applicant No.1
along with one other accused, in connivance with applicant
nos.2 and 3 prepared a forged Will and with the intention of
cheating, executed the sale deed of the aforesaid plot in
favour of one Ravindra Walia. When the respondent no.2
obtained the certified copy in respect of the aforesaid Will, it
was revealed that no such Will had actually been executed by
Nazir Ahmed in favour of applicant no.1 and one Anwari
Beguam. When on 18.03.2013 at about 11:00 of the day
when the respondent no.2 had a discussion with the accused
persons, he was told to do whatever he wants. He was also

1
subjected to filthy abuses with the further threat of being
killed, if any, legal action is taken against them. The
respondent No.2 tried to lodge the report, but no action was
taken. Consequently, on 03.04.2013, he gave an application
to SSP, Haridwar, wherein, the request to direct the S.H.O.,
Kotwali, Jwalapur for conducting the investigation was
made. When that too failed, the respondent no.2 moved an
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. On the said
application, the Court took cognizance treating it as a
Complaint Case under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., 1973.
The respondent no.2/complainant in support of his case
produced certain written documents. In oral evidence, he
produced his all evidences under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. , he produced the evidence of three witnesses.

3. Having perused the evidence produced before the
trial court, the applicants were summoned to face the trial
under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. Hence, this application has
been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that
the trial court has erred in law for summoning the applicants
to face the trial; no offence is made out against them; it is a
matter of civil dispute and the application is liable to be
allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel
supported the order passed by the trial court.

6. It needs to be mentioned at this stage that the
notice was issued to respondent nos.2 and 3 wherefor, the

2
power has been filed by respondent no.2, but none appears
today on behalf of the said respondents.

7. Having perused the order passed by the trial court
as well as material available on record, I am of the view that
no case for interference is made out in this matter at all.

8. The trial court has also held that prima facie no
element of cheating by forging the documents is made out
and it only summoned the accused to face the trial under
Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. The accused persons have
already been exonerated for the offence under Sections 467,
468 and 420 IPC. Even for the offences for which the
applicants have been summoned, they are free to discredit
evidence during cross examination of the prosecution
witnesses. This entire exercise can only been undertaken by
the trial court. This Court is not supposed to conduct trial in
the matter while exercising powers under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.

9. Accordingly, the present C482 application fails
and the same is dismissed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
13.05.2025
Ravi

3



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here