2025:UHC:6559 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482/834/2017 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Ms. Radha Arya proxy counsel for Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. B.N. Maulakhi, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the summoning/cognizance order dated 20.02.2017 passed in Criminal Case No. 719 of 2017, State vs. Ranjeeta Pal & Another, pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the said case. 4. Brief facts of the case, as per the record, are that respondent no.2 lodged an FIR against the applicants alleging that they along with certain others fraudulently induced respondent no.2 and others to part with ₹50 lakhs under the assurance that the amount would be doubled. Pursuant to the FIR, after investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against the applicants under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C.. Based on the said charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, took cognizance and summoned the applicants vide the impugned order dated 20.02.2017. Hence, the present application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated; that, the investigation was conducted in a mechanical manner and the charge sheet has been filed in a 2025:UHC:6559 very casual manner; that, the trial court passed the impugned order in a routine manner, without proper application of judicial mind and without considering the material available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that it is improbable that literate individuals from the same locality would hand over such a substantial sum to the applicants on the mere assurance of doubling the amount. She would further submit that assuming any monetary dispute exist the proper remedy lies in filing a civil suit for recovery. Therefore, the criminal proceedings are unsustainable in the eyes of law and same is liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently opposes the present application and would submit that the FIR contains specific and serious allegations involving the fraudulent misappropriation of a substantial amount of ₹50 lakhs; that, learned Magistrate passed the summoning order after due consideration of the material on record. Learned State counsel would further argues that the issues raised by the applicants pertain to disputed questions of fact and evidentiary appreciation, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and are matters to be examined during trial. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of the FIR would reveal that serious allegations have been levelled by respondent no.2/informant regarding the misappropriation of ₹50 lakhs under the pretext of doubling the money. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice. These powers cannot be invoked to re-evaluate 2025:UHC:6559 evidence or interfere with findings recorded by subordinate courts on factual aspects. 10. In the present case, the issues raised by the applicants involve disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence and cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such matters are to be adjudicated during the course of trial. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. 12. Accordingly, the C-482 application is dismissed. 13. No order as to costs. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 23.07.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:6559