IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 468 of 2004 Pushkar Singh Negi & another … Applicants Vs State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) & others … Respondents Sri T.A. Khan, Advocate for the applicants Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 134 of 2004, relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of I.P.C., pending in the court of IInd Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar by the Branch Manager, U.P. Cooperative Village Development Bank on 07.05.2002 alleging therein that some farmers have made complaints that the bank officials in conspiracy with the dealer for the pumping set have shown false loans in their names and consequently, a First Information Report was lodged by Promod Kumar (Branch Manager). After completing the investigation, the chargesheet was submitted by the police, before the court concerned. Thereafter, the learned Civil Judge II (J.D.), Roorkee, District Haridwar issued summoning order vide order dated 15.03.2004 against the applicants. 2 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid summoning order, the applicants have preferred this petition before this Court for quashing the aforesaid criminal proceedings as well as chargesheet. 4. Heard Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted before the Court that the contents of First Information Report is a false one. He has further submitted that the police during investigation did not consider the documents produced by the borrowers properly and submitted the chargesheet against the applicants. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the applicants appear to be illegal in the eye of law. 6. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted before the Court that summoning order is interlocutory order and summoning order should not be disturbed by invoking section 482 of Cr.P.C. He further argued that while exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., this court cannot enter into the question of facts and cannot re-appreciate the evidence. He further argued that scope of section 482 is limited and at this stage this Court has to see only as to whether prima facie case is made out justifying the summoning of the accused or not. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned summoning order passed by the court below against the applicants. It is settled position of law that the Court would interfere or quash the summoning orders and the proceedings 3 of the criminal case only in a rare of rarest cases where the offence is not made out or there is gross injustice to the accused-applicant. It is also settled position of law that this Court while hearing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not sitting as a trial court & this Court cannot take into consideration the plausible defence of the accused during the course of this hearing. I am of the view that the factual aspect of this case needs evidence to be adduced by the parties before the court concerned and the trial court after considering the evidence on record will decide the matter in accordance with law. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the accusation of the petitioner at this stage, as any judgment rendered by me would amount to pre-trial. Therefore, in view of the above facts as well as the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any abuse of process of court in this case and no flagrant injustice is also going to be caused to the petitioner in the case. The contentions, which the learned counsel for the applicant has raised before me, can be raised during his defence and it requires the evidence. 8. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, is dismissed. Interim stay order dated 28.10.2004 passed by this Court stands vacated. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 27.03.2010 ASWAL 4