2025:UHC:1851 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 688 of 2019 07 March, 2025 Mahant Dinesh Giri --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Amanjot Singh Chadha, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal and Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Brief Holders for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the charge-sheet dated 02.08.2013 in Case Crime No.54 of 2013, under Sections 419, 420, 468, 469, 471 & 474 IPC along with summoning order dated 01.11.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st, Dehradun. 3. Facts of the case are that respondent no.3 has lodged an FIR against the applicant on 23.05.2013 under Sections 419, 420, 468, 469, 471, 474, 504, 506 & 120B IPC with the allegation that the applicant is claiming share in certain lands on the basis of forged documents and impersonating himself to be Dinesh Giri. However, Dinesh Giri is son of Late Hoshiyar Giri. 1 2025:UHC:1851 4. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted by the police against the applicant on 02.08.2013. Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Dehradun took cognizance on charge-sheet and summoned the applicant on 01.11.2013 in Criminal Case No.54 of 2023. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that complainant and applicant were parties to a hotly contested civil litigation regarding certain properties which can be a reason for lodging the FIR. He also contends that shares in disputed land in question in the FIR came to the applicant by way of inheritance as he is the adopted son of the original owner of the land i.e. Shri Darshan Giri who also happens to be the grandfather of respondent no.3/complainant. 6. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that even on bare perusal of the FIR and the impugned charge-sheet no case under Sections for which the charge-sheet has been filed is made out. 7. Per contra, learned State Counsel relying on his counter affidavit submits that the investigating officer on the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence and statements of complainant and other witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. found cogent and credible evidence against the applicant in commission of crime, therefore, there is no illegality in the charge-sheet and the summoning order. 8. I have perused the FIR, charge-sheet and the entire material available on record. Since the offences lodged against the applicant are very serious in nature, therefore, this is not a case in which Court should 2 2025:UHC:1851 interfere. Moreover, this Court in proceeding under Section 482 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 enter into merits of the case at this stage. Veracity of the version of prosecution can only be proved during trial. Accordingly, the present C482 application fails and the same is dismissed. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.03.2025 AK 3