Reserved IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 786 of 2010 Raj Kumar Tewari ………..Applicant Versus State of Uttarakand and others. …..Respondents. Present: Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 & 2. Date of Decision : 7.9.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 & 2. 2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant challenging the summoning order dated 3.7.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet in Criminal Complaint Cse No. 361 of 2008 P.L. Tamta Vs. Rajkumar, whereby cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 420/471 I.P.C. against the present applicant. 3. This case appears to have a chequered history. The applicant procured an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules by misrepresentation and fraud by showing that he is the son of one Smt. Prema Tewari – the deceased, who died in harness as Assistant Teacher in a primary school, whereas from the records which are there before this Court earlier, more particularly the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, which was passed in a writ petition filed by the present applicant being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 828 of 2001, it is clear that the date of birth shown by the applicant before the Education Authorities was 30.6.1977, and this claim was refuted by the Education Authorities, since Smt. Prema Tiwari had never taken maternal leave during this period and in fact, she was present on 1.7.1977. There were other factors, which clearly pointed out that this date of birth of the applicant, which was claimed by the applicant as his actual date of birth is not correct. The applicant filed a Writ Petition stating that his actual date of birth is not 30.6.1977 but 3.10.1976, for which he also produced a Birth Certificate. 2 While dismissing his writ petition a Division Bench of this Court had the following observation to make regarding the conduct of the petitioner:- “…It is thus evident that the disputed birth certificate was procured by the petitioner with a view to make a claim on the basis of said certificate for his appointment on compassionate ground despite rejection of his representation on valid grounds. There can also be no doubt that the petitioner has made false averment to this effect in his affidavit knowing well that the date of birth shown in the High School certificate is the actual date of birth and the same can legally be taken to be correct date of birth of the person concerned. The petitioner has thus fabricated the document for use in judicial proceedings to support his false claim. The case of the petitioner is on, which falls under the category of perjury, and fabrication of the documents for use in judicial proceedings and the petitioner, therefore, is liable to be dealt with for the wrongful act. To avert the serious consequence, the petitioner fled the instant application. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, however, in the first instance instead of making a complaint u/s 340 Cr.P.C. for committing perjury, it is expedient in the interest of justice to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs for his wrong dong. The petitioner is accordingly dismissed with Rs. 5000/-(five thousand) as costs to be deposited within 15 days. In case of failure, proceedings be initiated.” 4. Inspite of these observations of the Division Bench of this Court, it is absolutely amazing as to how the petitioner could obtain an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules! The fact of the matter is that he did procure an appointment later and subsequently when a complaint was filed, he has now challenged the summoning order before this Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate while issuing summons to the applicant has clearly proceeded in accordance with law. There is absolutely no anomaly in the summoning order. Prima facie, the applicant has procured the appointment by mis-representation and fraud, therefore, there is no good for interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. The instant C-482 petition is totally devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed in limine and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 6. Learned AGA is hereby directed to place a copy of this order before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranikhet. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J) 7.9.2010 Rathour