IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 868/2006 Sunder Singh Rana …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Anr. …….Respondents August 5, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC) has been filed for quashing the chargesheet dated 22.8.2006 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 877/2006, State v. Sunder Singh under Section 406/504/506 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. Facts, in brief, are that respondent no. 2 Smt. Reeta Puri lodged an FIR with PS Rishikesh on 12.7.2006 with the averments that petitioner Sunder Singh Rana, who is working as Secretary/General Manager, Uttarakhand Co-operative Bank, Rishikesh came to her house on 3.1.2001 and promised the complainant to give her the job of Clerk in the said bank if she deposits rupees one lakh as contribution in the said bank and the said money shall be refunded to her after five years. On 10.1.2001, the complainant deposited rupees one lakh in the said bank. After five years, when the complainant asked for the refund of the said money, then the petitioner made obscene remarks and hurled abuses on the complainant and she was also threatened for life. She was also terminated from the post of Clerk. On the basis of this FIR, a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 406/504/506 IPC. After the investigation, the I.O. submitted a chargesheet dated 22.8.2006 against the petitioner. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. I do not find any force in this argument due to the reason that from the perusal of the contents of FIR and statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and other evidence collected by the I.O., a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner under the aforesaid sections. 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. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. If the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and the statements of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during the course of investigation are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been chargesheeted. 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 hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 3.11.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 5.8.2010 PRABODH 2