2025:UHC:4763 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 2445 of 2023 10th June, 2025 Sudhir Ahuja …………..Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ………….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. V. K. Kaparuwan, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of present C482 application, applicant has sought quashing of charge sheet dated 19.01.2023 filed in FIR No.26 of 2021 and entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.91 of 2023, State Vs. Sudhir Ahuja, under Sections 420, 418 and 270 of IPC registered with Police Station Dharchula, District Pithoragrah, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dharchula, District Pithoragarh and summoning order dated 09.08.2023. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the applicant is engaged in the business of supplying medical equipments in the name and style of “S.K. Enterprises” having its registered office at Delhi. During the pandemic COVID-19 respondent no.2 placed a demand order dated 09.03.2021 for many equipments and to the said demand applicant’s firm supplied the goods on 23.03.2021. On receiving all equipments from the applicant, respondent no.2 put all the material before duly constituted four members committee – Chief Pharmacist CMSD Store Pithoragarh, Senior Medical Officer CMSD Store 1 2025:UHC:4763 Pithoragarh, Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital Pithoragarh and respondent no.2-Chief Medical Officer, Pithoragarh – for testing their quantity and quality, which were found to be used and stained with blood marks, on which respondent no.2 filed a complaint against applicant on 05.06.2021 which was registered as FIR No.26 of 2021. On the said F.I.R. a charge sheet was submitted against applicant-Sudhir Ahuja under Sections 420, 270 and 418 of IPC dated 19.01.2023 on which court took cognizance on 13.07.2023 against the applicant and issued summons against him on 09.08.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the said order applicant is before this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that while taking cognizance learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the material evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and passed the impugned summoning order. He further submits that respondent no.2 under the influence of some persons who made complaints to the District Magistrate, Pithoragarh with false and frivolous allegations that some of the gloves were found defective and thereafter got conducted an inquiry, but in the inquiry nothing was found out to be wrong. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the applicant has raised the serious disputed question of facts before this Court and the same can only be examined during course of trial, thus the present C482 application is liable to be dismissed 6. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is not sustainable at this stage as the same 2 2025:UHC:4763 would require evidence to substantiate the said argument. Even the alleged inquiry report relied upon by the applicant needs to be proved by adducing/producing witnesses. This Court while sitting in the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not enjoined to sift the evidence between the parties and the same can be done only by the trial court. Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere in the present C482 application and the same is dismissed. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.06.2025 SK 3