RAVI DUTT SATI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no. 1 and Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the respondent no. 2. 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 chargesheet dated 31.3.2010 as well as the summoning order dated 7.5.2010 in Criminal Case No. 156/2010 under Section 420 IPC, State v. Ravi Dutt Sati pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar Garhwal.

(2.) FACTS, in brief, are that Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, father of respondent no. 2 was the owner of land and building situated on Khata No. 189 (Khet No. 511) at Srinagar Katulasue. The petitioner got executed a forged sale deed of the aforesaid land in his favour by co-sharer Ramesh Chandra Pandey, who was the owner of only 0.032 hectares in the said land but he sold 0.082 hectares. When objections were raised against it by the respondent no. 2, then the petitioner replied that wrong sale deed was executed in his favour. A loan from Union Bank, Srinagar was also taken by third party in which the petitioner stood as a guarantor by mortgaging the said land. Thereafter respondent no. 2 lodged an FIR against the petitioner and his sons Anil Sati and Ashok Sati. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against the petitioner, on the basis of which Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Srinagar Garhwal taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC and issued the summoning order dated 7.5.2010.

(3.) 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. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of trial court. 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 summoned 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.