IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 268 of 2011 Vinod Kumar Gupta ……… Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……… Respondents. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, Assistant Government Advocate (Govt. of Uttarakhand) for respondent No. 1. Date of Order: 28.03.2011 BARIN GHOSH, CHIEF JUSTICE In the First Information Report the allegation was that the informant has not furnished any guarantee, but by impersonating herself and by forging her signature, she was shown to have given a guarantee against certain properties belonging to her. The First Information Report resulted in filing of a police report, wherein it was stated that the investigation has revealed substance in the allegation made in the First Information Report, and that, the applicant is also involved therewith. Applicant, accordingly, approached the Allahabad High Court. The Allahabad High Court permitted the applicant to file an objection. Applicant filed an objection and the same has been rejected. While doing so, learned Magistrate held that the evidence, upon which the applicant is seeking to rely, are at variance with the evidence relied by the Investigating Officer. In the present application, applicant is seeking the Court to decide the matter by taking into account those evidences. 2. The Code does not authorize filing of an objection by a person accused in a police report. The Code, however, authorizes an accused person to obtain discharge and directs the Magistrate to frame charge only when the prayer for discharge has not been acceded to. In that backdrop, the Allahabad High Court order must be understood to have permitted the applicant to seek discharge, which the applicant could seek only on the basis of evidence that was brought on record alongwith the police report and could not, at that stage, rely upon any evidence that may be tendered 2 by the applicant at the trial, provided the trial is ordered after framing of charge sheet. 3. In the circumstances, in the present application, there is no scope of this Court to go into the evidence to be relied on by the applicant at the trial. The application is, accordingly, meritless and the same is dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that the matter is pending since 1997, in order to expedite the matter, I direct the applicant to respond to the summons by surrendering before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 3 weeks from today. In the event the applicant applies, upon such surrender, for bail, let the bail application be decided on the same date. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.03.2011 Amit