IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 NO. 289 OF 2003 Dr. Mukuleshwar Saran Singhal ……….Applicant. Versus State of Uttaranchal & Ors. ……Opp. Parties. Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Bipin Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned AGA for the State/opposite party no. 1 and 2. Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3. 3rd October, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This application filed U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the summoning order dated 1.11.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Case No. 5164 of 2003 U/s 406, 506, 420 and 120-B I.P.C., which was issued on the basis of FIR dated 21.9.2002. 2. The FIR dated 21.9.2002 has been lodged by one Mr. Rajendra Goel against one Sri Sukhjeevan Singh and Dr. M.S. Singhal stating therein that Sukhjeevan Singh took a sum of Rs. 9,09,700/- in three instalments for carrying on his business on the statement that Sukhjeevan Singh and Dr. M.S. Singhal, Diabetes Centre, Devpura, Haridwar and others are carrying on the business of Khair wood. A receipt was also given by Mr. Sukhjeevan Singh on 13.4.2002 on letter pad that the complainant shall be paid interest at the rate of 3% per month on the money credited to him and he also gave the details of the amount received by him. 2 3. Mr. Sukhjeevan Singh gave a cheque bearing No. 813893 of a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Jwalapur dated 21.11.2001. A bare perusal of the FIR dated 21.9.2002 shows that there is no allegation either of receipt or of the assurance of payment by Dr. M.S. Singhal. Neither any receipt, nor any assurance of payment was given by Dr. M.S. Singhal, therefore, from the bare perusal of the FIR dated 21.9.2002, no offence under Section 406, 506, 420 and 120B IPC is made out against Dr. M.S. Singhal. 4. For the reasons recorded above, application filed U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The summoning order dated 1.11.2003 and charge sheet dated 21.9.2002 so far as relate to the applicant Dr. M.S. Singhal only are hereby quashed. (P.C. Verma, J.) 3.10.2008 Rathour