Uttarakhand High Court
Vimlesh And vs State Of Uttarakhand on 4 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 98 of 2017
04th August, 2025
Vimlesh and
Others -Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
And Another -Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
None appeared for respondent no. 2, despite notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
The present Criminal Misc. Application under section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing and
setting-aside the summoning order dated 02.07.2016 passed
by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun in
Criminal Case No. 2584 of 2016, State Vs. Vimlesh and
Others, under sections 420 and 506 of IPC and the entire
proceedings arising out from it.
2. Facts necessary, to appreciate the controversy, briefly
stated, as follows:-
Respondent no. 2 filed an FIR dated 08.04.2016 before the
Police Station Patelnagar, Dehradun against the applicants.
In a complaint, she has mentioned the fact that
2unregistered agreement to sell of the property belonging to
the applicants was entered into between the applicants and
respondent no. 2 on 22.05.2012 and the respondent no. 2
have Rs. 11,25,000/- in pursuance to the said agreement.
She has further contended that respondent no. 2 requested
the applicant for execution of the sale-deed on several
occasions, but, she did not appear before the office of the
Sub-Registrar for registration of the sale-deed. Ultimately, it
came to her knowledge that applicant has made the sale-
deed in favour of one Sri Hukum Singh on 27.12.2012.
Thereafter, when respondent no. 2 asked the applicant to
return her money back, then the whole family of the
applicants threatened respondent no. 2 and refused to
return the money.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that
after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections
420 and 506 IPC in the Court and the applicants were
summoned by the learned ACJM II, Dehradun. Learned
counsel for the applicants would further submit that the
learned ACJM, Dehradun while issuing the summoning order
have not applied his judicial mind inasmuch as the
summoning order is cyclostyle.
4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
applicants has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by
Allahabad High Court in Vishnu Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs.
3
State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2020 SCC OnLine All 1363,
particularly paras 17, 18, and 19, wherein it has been
categorically held that issuance of a summoning order by
merely filling blanks in a printed format without recording
reasons or showing application of mind is impermissible in law
and renders such order unsustainable.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants would further submit
that this FIR was lodged by respondent no. 2 to harass and
victimise the applicants inasmuch as the bare reading of the
FIR would reveal that the dispute relates to pure civil nature
and the respondent no. 2 could not be permitted to invoke the
provisions of criminal procedure in a dispute, which is purely
civil in nature.
6. In support of this argument of learned counsel for the
applicants, he has also placed reliance upon a judgment
passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Murari Lal Gupta
Vs. Gopi Singh, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 699. Paragraph 6
of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-
“6. We have perused the pleadings of the parties, the complaint and the
orders of the learned Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. Having taken
into consideration all the material made available on record by the
parties and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are
satisfied that the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent
against the petitioner are wholly unwarranted. The complaint is an abuse
of the process of the court and the proceedings are, therefore, liable to be
quashed. Even if all the averments made in the complaint are taken to be
correct, yet the case for prosecution under Section 420 or Section 406 of
the Penal Code is not made out. The complaint does not make any
averment so as to infer any fraudulent or dishonest inducement having
been made by the petitioner pursuant to which the respondent parted
with the money. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner
does not have the property or that the petitioner was not competent to
4enter into an agreement to sell or could not have transferred title in the
property to the respondent. Merely because an agreement to sell was
entered into which agreement the petitioner failed to honour, it cannot be
said that the petitioner has cheated the respondent. No case for
prosecution under Section 420 or Section 406 IPC is made out even
prima facie. The complaint filed by the respondent and that too at
Madhepura against the petitioner, who is a resident of Delhi, seems to be
an attempt to pressurise the petitioner for coming to terms with the
respondent.”
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel supported the
impugned order, however, he would fairly concede that the
impugned summoning order suffers from non-application of
judicial mind and submits that the matter may be remanded
to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with
law.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
9. From the perusal of the impugned summoning order, it is
clear that it has been passed in a cursory and mechanical
manner using a printed format without indicating any
application of judicial mind or reference to material evidence.
10. Having considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned
summoning order as well as the judgments cited, it is evident
that the order passed by the Trial Court is cryptic and
mechanical. The Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction
vested in it in a lawful and judicious manner. It is a settled
position of law that summoning of an accused in a criminal
5
case is a serious matter and the order must reflect conscious
application of mind to the facts and material on record.
11. Moreover, the dispute is, prima facie, civil in nature
arising out of property dispute. There, prima facie, does not
appear to be any criminal intent on the part of the applicants
herein. There was remedy available to respondent no. 2 to file
a civil suit against the applicants either to get the sale deed
executed or to recover their money.
12. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Naresh Kumar
and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 268, relying upon the
decision in Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand,
(2013) 11 SCC 673 has observed that although the inherent
powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High
Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal
proceedings, which are essentially of a civil nature. For ready
reference, paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted
hereinbelow:-
“6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC
673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High
Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be
exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing
such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is
what was held:
“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly
and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint
6discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts
alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are
present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint
disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture.
But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is
essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence.
In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact,
adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not
hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of
process of the court.”
13. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rikhab
Birani and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823 dealt with the
ingredients to be satisfied for the offence punishable under
Section 420 IPC. For ready reference, paragraph 15 of the
aforesaid judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
“15. In Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court quoted an
earlier decision in Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, wherein,
referring to Section 420 of the IPC, it was observed that the offence under
the said Section requires the following ingredients to be satisfied:
“18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of
cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of
“cheating” are as follows:
(i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading
representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or
omission;
(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either
deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any
person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or
omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not
so deceived; and
(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or
harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.”
14. In such view of the matter, this Court of the opinion that
even if, any case is made out against the applicants, it is
essentially civil in nature. In the case at hand, this Court sees
no criminal element and consequently, the case here is
nothing, but, an abuse of the process.
7
15. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous
application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is allowed and the summoning order dated
02.07.2016 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate II, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 2584 of 2016,
State Vs. Vimlesh and Others, under sections 420 and 506 of
IPC and the entire proceedings arising out from it, is hereby
quashed, qua the applicants.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
04.08.2025
Ujjwal