2025:UHC:10293 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL **************** Criminal Misc. Appli. (C-482) No. 1263 of 2017 Kendra Pal Singh -------Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another -------Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. D.C.S.Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J. The present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet and the summoning order dated 22.03.2010, issued in the Criminal Case No. 120 of 2010, State vs. Kendra Pal Singh and others, under Sections 420 and 409 IPC, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar with the further prayer to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 28.05.2024, respondent no. 2 lodged a FIR against the applicant and one Mr. Basant Ballabh Oli alleging that since 17.07.2003 till 20.10.2003 record of the deposit of fee is not available and the FIR was registered as FIR/Case Crime No. 314 of 2004 at Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 IPC; that the applicant was Principal of the School and he has no concern with the records of fees as the same 1 2025:UHC:10293 record was maintained by the Clerk of the School. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on 31.07.2004, a charge-sheet no. 147 of 2004 was filed against the applicant, however on further investigation, a supplementary charge-sheet No. 467 of 2008 was filed on 12.08.2008 against Basant Ballabh Oli and the applicant was exonerated from the aforesaid offences; that the learned Magistrate did not took cognizance of the supplementary charge-sheet dated 12.08.2008 and vide order dated 22.03.2010 summoned the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 IPC; that the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is not made out against the applicant as the applicant had not tried to deceive anyone by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action of omission. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant thus submits that the proceedings against the applicant before the Trial Court would be a futile exercise and the learned Magistrate has summoned the applicant without application of judicial mind as the supplementary charge-sheet was not taken into consideration. 4. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the respondent-State, in which, the fact of submission of charge-sheet on 12.08.2008 and the fact that in the supplementary charge-sheet it is stated that no offence was committed by the applicant is not disputed. It is further stated that after further investigation, the investigating officer upon finding the evidence against Clerk Basant Ballabh Oli, sent a charge-sheet against 2 2025:UHC:10293 him and no crime was committed by the present applicant. Para 11 of the Counter affidavit filed by the respondent read as under: “11. That in reply to the contents of para 05, 06 and 07 of the affidavit it is submitted that the previous investigating officer, after finding prima facie evidence, filed a charge-sheet against the present accused/applicant Kendrapal Singh which was sent to the learned Court below and after further investigation, the investigating officer found evidence against the accused-clerk Basant Ballabh Oli and filed a charge- sheet against him. The charge-sheet was sent to the learned Court below and the charge-sheet stated that no crime was committed against the present accused- applicant Kendrapal Singh.” 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Magistrate did not took cognizance of the charge-sheet dated 12.08.2008 and issued summons to the applicant on 23.03.2010, based on the earlier charge- sheet dated 31.07.2004. A perusal of the summoning order dated 23.03.2010 reveals that it is a cryptic order and records that the charge-sheet has been filed, issue summons to the accused. The summoning order nowhere records any finding as to on which charge- sheet the cognizance has been taken by the Judicial Magistrate and no reason has been assigned for summoning the applicant. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Food Ltd. And another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749, has held in para 28 of the judgment as hereunder: 3 2025:UHC:10293 “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 7. In view of the above discussions, the C-482 Application is allowed. Accordingly, the charge-sheet, summoning order dated 22.03.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 120 of 2010, State vs. Kendra Pal Singh and others, under Sections 420 and 409 IPC, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, are quashed. (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 17.11.2025 Kaushal 4