2026:UHC:3627 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528 No.964 of 2026 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Deepak Petshali, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Present C-528 application is filed with the prayer to set-aside/ quash the cognizance/ summoning order dated 17.09.2021 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.2031 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3. As per the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the applicant along with other co- accused persons allegedly threatened the complainant on 15.12.2020 and demanded a sum of ₹10,00,000/-, further threatening that, in case the demand was not fulfilled, the complainant and his children would be done away with. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. I t is contended that, at the time of the alleged incident, the applicant was present at his residence and had no connection with the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the complainant is related to co- accused Manoj Kumar and there exists a long- standing property dispute between the complainant and his father. Manoj Kumar was allegedly making efforts to amicably resolve the said dispute and the applicant was supporting the complainant’s father. Owing to the said reason, the applicant has been roped in maliciously. I t is further argued that no offence under Section 386 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant, inasmuch as, the essential ingredients constituting the offence of extortion are absent. Learned counsel submits that there is no specific allegation that the complainant was put in fear of death or grievous hurt and, 2026:UHC:3627 pursuant thereto, delivered any property or valuable security to the accused persons. It is also submitted that the allegations pertaining to criminal intimidation are vague, omnibus and general in nature and, therefore, no offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is made out. According to learned counsel, the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature, which has been given a criminal colour with an ulterior motive. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon in proceedings under Section 528 B.N.S. At the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the allegations contained in the F.I .R. and the material collected during investigation. 6. This Court does not find any such illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned summoning order or the proceedings in question so as to warrant interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant pertain to matters of defence, which may appropriately be considered by the trial Court during the course of trial. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference in the matter. 8. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 12.05.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb73933 98f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987446351E 4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.05.13 14:43:43 +05'30'