HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.402 of 2016 Narayan Singh and another ………Applicants Versus Inder Singh ………Respondent Mr. Brahmdev, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. D.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, Advocate for the respondent. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) This C482 application is directed against the summoning order dated 16.11.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.285 of 2016, Inder Singh vs. Narayan Singh and another, under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC and further to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.285 of 2016, pending before the said court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of applicant no.1 and grand father of applicant no.2 i.e. Lal Ram had married Sukhi Devi who gave birth to two sons, namely Narayan Singh (applicant no.1) and Inder Singh (died) and one daughter namely Ladaita Devi. Inder Singh got married with Rama Devi who gave birth to Anand Singh, who also happens to be applicant no.2 in the present application. Later, after the death of Inder Singh (father of applicant no.2). Ramawati married another man who was also named Inder Singh, who happens to be the respondent in the present case. During the course of time, a family dispute arose as Ramawati started residing at the residence of her earlier husband which was subsequently objected to by the 1 applicants, she was already married to another man and had no rights to the property of her earlier husband. Thereafter, an FIR No.209/211 was filed by the respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 406 against the applicants. After the submission of final report by the Investigating Officer, a protest petition was submitted by the respondent before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar who in turn summoned the applicants and registered a criminal case. Hence, this C-482 application. 3. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the learned Judicial Magistrate has erred in law by summoning the applicants and registering a criminal case against them. He submits that the Investigating Officer after proper investigation had submitted the closure report, as he did not find any material evidence against the applicants for the offences that were alleged against them. 4. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents does not hold any right over the property of applicants and all the allegations in the FIR are false and baseless and are a mere tactic by the respondent to falsely acquire the property of applicants. He also submits that no adoption deed was registered in favour of respondent, by the father of applicant no.1 and grandfather of applicant no.2 as he had his own children. Therefore, by making false accusations in the FIR he is trying to acquire rights over applicants’ property. 5. The learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that in a compromise, it is already affirmed by Ladaita Devi, daughter of Lal Ram, that applicant no.1 and Inder Singh 2 (father of applicant no.2) are her brothers, the fact which learned Magistrate did not consider, while passing the order. He further submits that a family settlement dated 26.11.2005 was also executed between applicant no.2 and the son of respondent. The learned counsel also submits that the respondent with the ill intention of acquiring rights over applicants’ property has given a colour of a criminal dispute to a civil dispute. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed no illegality in taking cognizance and summoning the applicants after hearing and examining the protest petition as it is a settled proposition of law that a Magistrate is not bound by the final report submitted by an Investigating Officer. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the present case consists of multiple disputed facts which can only be settled before the trial court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to use its discretionary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in this matter. 8. Accordingly, C-482 application is dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 31.07.2025 Ravi 3