IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 1042/2006 Meghshyam Rawat …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Ors. …….Respondents August 13, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 19.1.2006 and the order dated 17.10.2006 framing the charge against the petitioner as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2235/2006 Jagdish Chandra Joshi v. Meghshyam Rawat & Ors. under Section 406, 420, 465, 120-B IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate/Munsif Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent no. 3 lodged an FIR against the petitioner and another co-accused CS Pant stating that he was serving outside his house and he made the banama of his land in favour of the co-accused CS Pant on his assurance that he shall get recorded the entries of his land in the revenue records and will also get sanctioned the map of his house. But co-accused CS Pant misused the said banama and he in collusion with the petitioner took a loan in the name of petitioner from the State Bank of Patiyala, Haldwani and made him the guarantor of the said loan by mortgaging his land and producing false documents and photographs before the bank. The complainant came to know about this fact on 28.10.2005 when he got the information from his home that a notice for recovery of the said loan has been received from the bank. He contacted the said bank and came to know the aforesaid acts of the petitioner and the co-accused CS Pant. Thereafter he gave a legal notice through his Advocate to the accused but the said notice was not replied. Police refused to lodged the FIR, hence the instant complaint was lodged by the respondent no. 3. Learned trial court after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC, came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 406, 420, 465 IPC is made out against the petitioner and the another co-accused and accordingly summoned them vide order dated 19.1.2006. Thereafter recording the evidence, charges were framed against the petitioner and the another co-accused under Section 406, 420, 465, 120-B IPC vide order dated 17.10.2006. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners due to the reasons that averments made in the complaint are corroborated by the statement of the complainant and the other documentary and oral evidence produced by the complainant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also argued that the charges framed against the petitioner are not as per law. I do not find any substance in the argument of learned Counsel inasmuch as the allegations made in the complaint find corroboration from the documentary and oral evidence adduced on record. Hence, learned trial court has rightly framed the charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 465, 120-B IPC vide order dated 17.10.2006. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Soma chakravarty v. State (Th. CBI) reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3683, wherein it has been held that if on the basis of material on record the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has 2 to be accepted as true at that stage. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner; perusal of complaint, summoning order dated 19.1.2006, order dated 17.10.2006 framing the charge, statements of the complainant and other documentary and oral evidence available on record, I am of the view that a prima facie case under the aforesaid Sections is made out against the petitioner. Even otherwise, the dispute involves factual question which cannot be decided by this Court. The dispute can be decided only after adducing the oral and the documentary evidence by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be decided by this Court only on the basis of papers filed on the record. If the allegations made and the evidence oral as well as documentary produced against the accused and the statements of witnesses are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been summoned and charges have also rightly been framed against him by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of Court. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 20.12.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.8.2010 PRABODH 3