IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 122 of 2010 Pooran Singh Bisht S/o Late Keshar Singh Bisht R/o Roop Nagar Haldwani, District Nainital. …………..…Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand. ……….Respondent. Shri Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 10.04.2009, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, in criminal case No. 328 of 2006, State Vs. Diwan Singh, whereby the petitioner has been summoned by the trial court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the District Excise Officer, Almora, lodged a First Information Report on 06.12.2005, against the petitioner-Pooran Singh Bisht, relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 467, 147 I.P.C. which was registered as crime No. 1852 of 2005. In said First Information Report, it is alleged that the petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- for release of liquor for sale, 2 got deposited only Rs. 10,000/- and fraudulently got released the liquor. However, during investigation, it was found that it was accused Diwan Singh Bisht, an employee of the petitioner, who committed forgery in the treasury chalan. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on coming to know of the forgery, committed by Diwan Singh Bisht, through letter dated 21.11.2005, the petitioner immediately got deposited remaining 90,000/- with the treasury chalan (copy annexure-3 to the petition). He (petitioner) gave a report to the police on 07.12.2005, for registering the case against Diwan Singh Bisht. It was alleged in the report submitted by Pooran Singh Bisht (petitioner) against his employee Diwan Singh that he (Diwan Singh Bisht) had committed forgery by adding zero in chalan of Rs. 10,000/- which was got deposited by him. It is also alleged in the report submitted by Pooran Singh Bisht to the police that Diwan Singh had withdrawn Rs. 1,45,090/- from Nainital-Almora, Kshetriya Gramin Bagwalipokhar, which clearly suggests that petitioner had no intention to deposit lesser amount. The Investigating Officer after investigation, accepted the version of the petitioner- Pooran Singh Bisht and submitted charge-sheet against Diwan Singh Bisht. 5. The trial court appears to have passed orders under Section 319 Cr.P.C., summoning the petitioner-Pooran Singh Bisht, as accused, only on the ground that P.W. 1-District Excise Officer has 3 given the statement corroborating the story, mentioned in the First Information Report. Having closely scrutinised the statement of said witness P.W. 1 Arvind Kumar, District Excise Officer, it is clear that statement of said witness does not throw any light as to the criminal intention on the part of the petitioner, nor does it contradict the finding of the Investigating Officer that it was the employee of the petitioner, who got forgery committed, and facing trial after charge-sheet is filed. In the circumstances, merely on the testimony of P.W. 1, which does not throw any light, as to the intention on the part of petitioner, this Court is of the view that the trial court has committed error of law in summoning the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 6. For the reasons, as discussed above, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.04.2009, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, in criminal case No. 328 of 2006, whereby the petitioner –Pooran Singh Bisht, has been summoned as accused, is hereby quashed. The trial shall proceed further against the accused Diwan Singh Bisht, against whom charge sheet has been filed. (Urgency application No. 974 of 2010, stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:17.03.2010 Sweta 4