2025:UHC:4661 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI 4th June, 2025 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 27 of 2019 Chet Ram …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another …Respondents Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Krishan Mohan Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, Advocate. Counsel for the State : Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. Counsel for Respondent : Mr. Siddhartha Jain No. 2 Advocate. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3728 of 2016, State v. Dinesh Kumar & Others, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Dehradun, arising out of Case Crime No. 20 of 2016, registered at Police Station Indira Nagar, Basant Vihar, Dehradun, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC, including the charge-sheet dated 04.07.2016 and the summoning order dated 29.08.2016. 2. It is the case of the applicant that he was serving in the Military Engineer Services (MES) at Clement Town, Dehradun, and had stood as a guarantor in good faith for a car loan of ₹4,00,000/- being availed by one Mr. Dinesh Kumar, at the request of Mr. Suresh Saini in 2013. He contends that he derived no benefit from the said loan and was not involved in 1 Criminal Misc. Application No.27 of 2019, Chet RamVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - Ashish Naithani J. . 2025:UHC:4661 the procurement or use of the allegedly forged documents, which included a false quotation and insurance note purportedly submitted by Mr. Dinesh Kumar. 3. The applicant claims he had no knowledge of any misrepresentation and was unaware of any default until a non- bailable warrant was served upon him in November 2018. It is urged that his role was limited to that of a guarantor on account of personal acquaintance and that he had no part in any fraudulent act. It is further argued that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet attributes any overt act of cheating or forgery to the applicant. 4. It was further submitted that the applicant had earlier been granted interim protection from arrest in Criminal Writ Petition No. 669 of 2016. Nonetheless, the investigating agency filed the charge-sheet without independent application of mind, and the summoning order was passed mechanically, without assigning reasons or separately appreciating the role of the applicant. 5. Per contra, the State contended that the applicant, by standing as a guarantor, aided the principal accused in securing the loan, which was sanctioned on the basis of forged documents. It was submitted that, being a government employee, the applicant lent legitimacy to the application, and his role cannot be described as casual or innocent. The State further argued that the allegations in the FIR, when read alongside the material collected during investigation, disclose cognizable offences and justify the applicant’s prosecution through a full-fledged trial. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. The power under Section 482 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, to prevent abuse of 2 Criminal Misc. Application No.27 of 2019, Chet RamVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - Ashish Naithani J. 2025:UHC:4661 process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enumerated illustrative categories in which such power may be invoked, including where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence. 8. In the present case, the FIR alleges explicitly that the loan was sanctioned on the basis of forged documents submitted by the principal accused and that the applicant stood as a guarantor. The investigation materials suggest that the applicant knowingly facilitated the loan transaction and lent it credibility due to his status as a government employee, thereby aiding in the commission of the offence. 9. While it is settled that a guarantor's liability under civil law arises only upon default of the principal borrower and is ordinarily vicarious in nature, such principles cannot be applied ipso facto in criminal proceedings, particularly where there are allegations of complicity or conspiracy in the commission of fraud. If the guarantor is alleged to have knowingly aided in securing the loan through fabricated documentation, such conduct may prima facie attract offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. The existence of mens rea, if any, remains a matter for trial. 10. Moreover, the summoning order dated 29.08.2016 reflects judicial application of mind to the facts of the case and the charge-sheet, and no procedural irregularity has been demonstrated. 11. This Court does not, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, enter into a detailed analysis of the probative value of the material. The scope of interference is confined to glaring legal infirmities or manifest injustice. No such exceptional circumstance is made out in the case at hand. 3 Criminal Misc. Application No.27 of 2019, Chet RamVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - Ashish Naithani J. 2025:UHC:4661 ORDER In view of the above discussion, the application under Section 482 CrPC is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 04.06.2025 SB 4 Criminal Misc. Application No.27 of 2019, Chet RamVs State of Uttarakhand and Anr - Ashish Naithani J.