2025:UHC:7334 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482/1057/2017 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. B.N. Molakhi, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking to quash the impugned order dated 11.07.2017 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2014, whereby the revision preferred by respondent nos. 2 to 5 against the summoning order dated 08.08.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 7271 of 2009 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., was allowed and the summoning order was set aside. 4. Brief facts of the case, as per record, are that the applicant was the State President of Uttaranchal Bhumi & Jal Sanrakshan Jalagam Vikas Pravidhik Association. The elections of the said association were scheduled to be held on 05.07.2005. It is alleged that respondent nos. 2 to 5, in collusion with some other persons, prepared forged documents relating to the said elections, illegally used the letterhead, seal and stamp pad of the association, fabricated the list of delegates, and falsely projected themselves as office-bearers of the association. 5. It is alleged that the applicant initially attempted to lodge an FIR, but when no FIR was registered despite representations before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, he filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate, after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 2025:UHC:7334 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 08.08.2013, summoned the accused persons to face trial under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents preferred Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2014 before the Sessions Court, which was heard by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun. Vide judgment dated 11.07.2017, the learned revisional court allowed the revision and set aside the summoning order dated 08.08.2013. It is this order which is under challenge in the present application. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the revisional court erred in law and on facts in setting aside the well-reasoned summoning order of the Magistrate. He argues that the respondents, without having any authority under law or being members of the association, illegally constituted a forged working committee by misusing the seal and stamp of the association. The revisional court, without due consideration of the material available on record, has mechanically and casually interfered with the summoning order. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the elections in question pertain to the year 2005, whereas the term of the management committee was only three years. Several terms of the committee have since elapsed. He contends that the issues raised involve disputed questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence, a matter to be considered during trial, and not in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is an admitted position that the dispute relates to the elections of the association held in the year 2005, and that the term of the management committee was only three years. Thus, the grievance essentially pertains to an internal election dispute of an association of 2025:UHC:7334 which several subsequent terms have already passed. 11. It is settled law that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, only to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. It cannot be invoked to re-appreciate evidence or to re-examine factual determinations made by the subordinate courts. 12. In the present case, the allegations made by the applicant raise contentious and disputed questions of fact which require evidence to be led and adjudicated upon during trial. Such disputed questions cannot be gone into in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the revisional court has considered the relevant aspects and set aside the summoning order. This Court, in its inherent jurisdiction, does not find any perversity or patent illegality in the impugned order so as to warrant interference. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. Accordingly, the present application fails and is hereby dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 14.08.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:7334