2025:UHC:5655 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482 No. 1476 of 2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. D.N. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant. 4. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned charge-sheet, summoning/ cognizance order dated 18.10.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 247 of 2013 ‘State Vs. Smt. Kamlesh Kiryana’ under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 I.P.C. as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. against the applicant and her husband alleging therein that the applicant and her husband, Ravi Kant Kiryana, in conspiracy, used forged documents to cause wrongful gain to themselves and loss to the respondent no.2/complainant. It was alleged that an agreement to sell a piece of land situated at Dehradun was executed in favour of the complainant for ₹24 lakhs, out of which ₹13 lakhs were paid by respondent no.2/complainant and a cheque was also given by the husband of the applicant as security for the said deal. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case. The alleged agreement to sell was executed solely between the complainant and the applicant’s husband, based on a General Power of Attorney 2025:UHC:5655 given to the husband of the applicant by Chandan Singh and Narayan Singh. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that though the cheque in question was issued from a joint account of the applicant and her husband, but it was signed only by the husband of the applicant, therefore, the applicant was neither a signatory to the cheque nor a party to the agreement. He would further submit that even in the legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, allegations were made only against the applicant’s husband. Thus, the entire criminal proceeding against the applicant is unsustainable in the eyes of law and same is liable to be quashed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant would vehemently oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that both the applicant and her husband fabricated documents for wrongful benefit. However, he would fairly concede that the agreement to sell was executed only between the respondent no.2/complainant and the husband of the applicant, namely, Ravi Kant Kiryana, and the cheque though issued from a joint account in favour of respondent no.2/complainant but the same was not signed by the present applicant. 9. Heard and perused the record in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 10. It is undisputed that the applicant is not the owner (bhumidhari) of the land in question and the cheque in question did not bear the applicant’s signature. Furthermore, the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued only against the applicant’s husband, therefore, the agreement to sale and related documents do not indicate any role of the applicant in the instant crime. 11. In light of the above, this Court is of the 2025:UHC:5655 view that this to be a fit case for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 12. Accordingly, the charge-sheet, summoning/cognizance order dated 18.10.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate II, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 247 of 2013 ‘State Vs. Smt. Kamlesh Kiryana’ under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 I.P.C. are hereby quashed. The entire proceedings of the said case against the applicants are hereby quashed. 13. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. 14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. [ (Alok Mahra, J.) 02.07.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:5655