HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.662 of 2022 Smt. Shilpa Kala ………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ………Respondents Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Present C-482 application has been filed by the applicant for quashing/setting aside the charge-sheet dated 07.04.2016 and summoning order dated 19.07.2016 passed by judicial Magistrate-Ist, Dehradun alongwith entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2811 of 2016, State vs. Ashwani Kala and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, pending in the court of 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record. Miscellaneous Application (IA No.2 of 2022) made therefor stands disposed of accordingly. 3. The facts in brief are that an FIR was lodged by respondent no.2 alleging that the applicant’s husband introduced her to the bank as proprietor of M/s Rakesh Enterprises which deals in sale of marbles and stones for availing a loan of Rs.30 lacs for the aforesaid purpose, documentation was done and Shri Ashwani Kala mortaged his property as security to the bank but subsequently the bank came to know that the property which was mortgaged has already been sold before sanction of the loan. 1 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with M/s Rakesh Enterprise as the organization was solely run by her husband. She was merely a rubber stamp in the said organization. He further pleads that the applicant was pregnant at that time and she was not aware about the fact that the mortgaged property was already sold by her husband. He also pleads that the bank is equally guilty as the bank was negligent in not inquiring into the fact regarding the veracity of the property. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant states that even if, entire allegations of the FIR are deemed to be true then also the basic ingredients of offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC are not made out against the applicant. He submits that the investigation officer has mechanically submitted the charge-sheet and the learned Judicial Magistrate without applying judicial mind has took cognizance and issued summons. He further pleads that default in repayment loan is not a criminal offence and the bank has already initiated recovery proceedings in DRT, Lucknow in the year 2015. 6. Per contra, the learned State Counsel submits that the Investigation Officer after conducting due investigation and keeping in mind the statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has diligently submitted the charge-sheet satisfied by which the learned court below has taken congnizance and issued summons. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations against the applicant are quite 2 serious in nature involving disputed questions of fact which could be dealt with only by the trial court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to use its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the case does not fall in the category of “rarest of rare case”. 8. Accordingly, the C482 application is dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 19.05.2025 Ravi 3