Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15592 (UTT)

SHIV KUMAR SAINI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

C528/1975/2025 · 2025-11-18

Pankaj Purohit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:10202 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application No. 1975 of 2025 18 November, 2025 Shiv Kumar Saini --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Indu Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holders for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present C528 application, the applicant has challenged the charge-sheet dated 22.05.2025, as well as the impugned cognizance/ summoning order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gopeshwar, in Criminal Case No. 300 of 2025 (Case Crime No. 0003/2025), State vs. Shiv Kumar, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, and 340(2) of the BNS, 2023, Police Station Gopeshwar, District Chamoli, and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. 2. The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that on 01.01.2025, the District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Chamoli, requested the Station House Officer, Police Station Gairsain, to register an FIR and take legal action against Assistant Teacher Shri Shiv Kumar Saini (the present applicant) for allegedly obtaining government service on the basis of a fake Intermediate mark sheet, a charge supported by 2025:UHC:10202 2 discrepancies between his mark sheet and the official Gazette. Saini was initially suspended in September 2024 and subsequently dismissed from service in November 2024 after the explanation furnished by him was found unsatisfactory. Two earlier attempts to register an FIR at Police Stations Gairsain and Gopeshwar were unsuccessful, as both stations advised that the complaint must be lodged by the Appointing Authority at the police station within whose jurisdiction the accused is currently employed. Consequently, the necessary documents were formally forwarded to Gopeshwar to initiate legal proceedings under the appropriate sections. With the aforesaid allegations, an FIR was registered against the applicant. 3. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted by the police against the applicant on 22.05.2025. Thereafter, on 06.10.2025, learned Judicial Magistrate, Gopeshwar issued summons to the applicant. Hence, applicant is before this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned charge-sheet; summoning/cognizance order as well as the entire above criminal proceedings are not sustainable in the eyes of law. She further submits that there is no iota of evidence in support of the allegations alleged in the FIR. She also submits that the summoning/cognizance order passed by learned Magistrate is wholly arbitrary, mechanical, and passed without proper application of judicial mind to the material available on record. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that 2025:UHC:10202 3 applicant has committed a serious offence and the trial court after appreciating the evidence available on record has rightly summoned the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire documents available on record. 8. From perusal of the FIR, prima facie, the commission of cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against him. It is upto the learned trial court to sift the evidence available on record. At this stage, this Court while sitting in C528 jurisdiction cannot sift the evidence and record a finding of innocence against the applicant. The material available on record makes out a case for trial against the applicant. Further, the allegations are very serious of getting public employment on fake and forged educational testimonials. Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere in the present C528 application and the same is dismissed in-limine. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 18.11.2025 AK