Vimlesh and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Misc. Application No. 98 of 2017

¶3

0 4 th August, 2025

¶4

Vimlesh and Others -Applicants

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Uttarakhand And Another -Respondents

¶7

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.

¶8

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

¶9

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.

¶10

Facts necessary, to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, as follows:-

¶11

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

¶12

2

¶13

unregistered 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 saledeed 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

3

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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:-

¶20

“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

¶21

4

¶22

enter 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.”

¶23

Per contra , learned State Counsel supported the

¶24

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.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

5

¶29

case is a serious matter and the order must reflect conscious application of mind to the facts and material on record.

¶30

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.

¶31

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:-

¶32

“ 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:

¶33

“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

¶34

6

¶35

discloses 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 .”

¶36

Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rikhab

¶37

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:-

¶38

“ 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:

¶39

“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:

¶40

(i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission;

¶41

(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

¶42

(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.”

¶43

In such view of the matter, this Court of the opinion that

¶44

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.

¶45

7

¶46

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.

¶47

(Alok Mahra, J.) 04.08.2025

¶48

Ujjwal

Vimlesh and Others v. State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimlesh and Others v. State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bhagwan Devi Vs State of Uttaranchal and Another

Harikishan Alias Rinku Vs State of Uttarakhand

Tribhuwan Singh Vs State of Uttaranchal

Guman Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mohd. Hasan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gaurav Vs State of Uttarakhand