HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.532 of 2023 Inderjit Singh Mehta ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Pankaj Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. G.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State. Mr. S.R.S. Gill, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of this C-482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the charge-sheet dated 27.02.2023 as well as summoning order dated 17.03.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.190 of 2023, State vs. Indrajit Singh Mehta” under Section 408 IPC. 2. The facts in brief are that the applicant is working as a Manager in M/s Dabka Stone Crusher Pvt. Ltd. and has been accused of embezzlement of money to the tune of Rs.7 crores by the director of the said company. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has neither committed criminal breach of trust nor any sort of embezzlement. He further submits that despite lack of evidence, the charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer against him on the basis of which the learned Judicial Magistrate without applying his judicial mind has issued summons against him in cyclostyle manner. 4. Counter affidavit is submitted by the respondent no.1 in which it is stated that credible evidence was collected against the applicant showing his complicity in crime and thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted 2 considering which the Judicial Magistrate has rightfully issued summons. 5. Counter affidavit is also submitted by the respondent no.2 in which he states that on due audit of the records of the firm, he found out that applicant has embezzled money and has supplied it to the firm of his daughter, only thereafter he lodged the FIR. 6. The applicant in his rejoinder affidavit submits that basic ingredient of offence under Section 408 IPC are not made out against him. He also submits that he did not have any absolute entrustment and was only a joint signatory of the accounts of the firm. 7. Heard. 8. I have perused the FIR, charge-sheet and entire material available on record and have considered the rival submissions. 9. Since the offences lodged against the applicant are very serious in nature, therefore, this is not a case where the Court should interfere with. 10. Moreover, this Court in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is not in a position to sift the evidence and when prima-facie case is made out against the applicant and the charge-sheet has been submitted, this Court cannot entered into the merits of the case at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only be proved during trial. 11. Accordingly, the present C482 application is dismissed. 12. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.04.2025 Ravi