2025:UHC:2959 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application No. 433 of 2025 17th April, 2025 Satyam Bada @ Anupriya Singh and anr ………..Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ………..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. J.P. Kandpal, B.H. for the State. Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate for respondent no.2, through video conferencing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) This application filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 is directed against the summoning order dated 12.02.2025, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Case No.399 of 2025 (Case Crime No.404 of 2023), State Vs. Satyam Bada @ Anupriya & other for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC registered with Police Station Kotwali Haldwani, District Nainital. 2. It needs to be mention at the outset that respondent no.2- Shiv Kush Saxena has wrongly been arraigned as respondent no.2 in this C528 application since he is not the informant in the F.I.R. The informant is Monika w/o Shiv Kush Saxena. 3. Facts in a nutshell are that an F.I.R. was lodged by one Monika w/o Shiv Kush Saxena against the applicants herein for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC stating therein that in the evening at about 07:32 P.M. on 21.07.2023 informant’s children along with other children were playing outside their house. 4. During their playful activities the ball of children went inside the house of the applicants, however no damage was caused, 1 2025:UHC:2959 but on this meager issue the applicants got enraged and admonished the children by giving them threat that their throat will be slit. 5. Information of this incident was given by the children of informant after reaching their house. It is also stated that in the past also behavior of both the applicants towards the informant’s children had been quite abusive and threatening. 6. On that the matter was investigated on completion of which, a charge sheet was filed in the court on 10.08.2024 for the aforesaid offence. The trial court on the aforesaid charge sheet, took cognizance against the applicants under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and summoned them to face trial. Challenging those proceedings and the summoning order the present C528 application has been filed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties carefully and have gone through the material available on record. 8. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that there has been previous enmity between the applicants and the informant’s husband. 9. The present F.I.R. is a counter blast to the F.I.R. lodged by the applicants against the husband of the informant. The Court below has erred in law in summoning the applicants; order passed by the trial court is without application of mind. 10. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as respondent no.2 have vehemently argued that for the offence committed by the applicants charge sheet was submitted whereupon the trial court has summoned the applicants to face trial and there is no illegality or irregularity in the order summoning the accused. 11. Having perused the order dated 12.02.2025, whereby the applicants have been summoned to face trial, I am of the considered view that there is no illegality or perversity in the said order. 12. The applicants on a trivial issue threatened the children of the informant of dire consequences. 2 2025:UHC:2959 13. Moreover this Court is not supposed to conduct enquiry about veracity of the contents of the F.I.R. as it is a course to be undertaken by the trial court only after the evidence is adduced/produced. 14. It also needs to be mentioned at this stage that F.I.R. No.582 of 2020 dated 04.11.2020 was filed by applicant no.1 herein against Mr. Shiv Kush Saxena (husband of the informant in the F.I.R. No.404 of 2023) wherein the allegations of Sections 354, 504 and 506 of IPC were leveled. 15. The allegation in that F.I.R. was that the respondent no.2 did molestation and obscene act with the daughters of the informant. 16. On 22.09.2020, the accused-Shiv Kush Saxena stopped vehicle of the husband of applicant no.1, abused and threatened him of lodging an F.I.R. against him. 17. On the said F.I.R., the matter was investigated on completion of which, a final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was submitted by the Police. 18. On the said final report, the trial court issued notice to the informant on which on 20.03.2021, the complainant requested to register the said case as a complaint and as a result the said case was registered as a complaint and statement of informant and her witness were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. The trial court on hearing the parties summoned the accused/respondent no.2 to face the trial under Sections 354, 504 and 506 of IPC. 19. Being disgruntled by the said summoning order, the respondent no.2 preferred Revision No.13 of 2023 whereas against the same order the applicant preferred a Criminal Revision No.8 of 2023 on the ground that by way of impugned order dated 16.02.2023 applicant was not summoned in all the sections made out against him. The revisional court after hearing the parties dismissed the revision. 20. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going 3 2025:UHC:2959 through the facts of the case I find no ground of interference. This Court cannot sift the evidence and the same would be done before the trial court after examination of witnesses of both the parties. 21. The C528 application lacks merit and is dismissed at the threshold itself. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.04.2025 SK 4