Prakash Chandra Bhagat v. State of Uttarakhand and Another

15.05.2018 passed by the Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Revision No. 96 of 2017, whereby the challenge to the summoning order was rejected.

2. The primary grievance raised by the Applicant is that the criminal proceedings initiated against him are motivated by malice, arise out of a familial property dispute, and do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Applicant contends that the summoning order suffers from non-application of mind and that the revisional court failed to appreciate the absence of material to proceed against him. Criminal Misc. Application No. 877 of 2018, Prakash Chandra Bhagat Vs State of Uttarakhand And Another 1 Ashish Naithani J.

3. The factual backdrop giving rise to the present application is that the Applicant and Respondent No. 2, namely Shekhar Chandra Bhagat, are real brothers. Their elder brother, Late Shri Bhuvan Chandra Bhagat, who was unmarried and employed in the Uttarakhand High Court, owned a Maruti car bearing registration number UA 04/900. After his demise and that of their father, the said car remained in the custody of the complainant and other family members.

4. In 2012, the Applicant allegedly claimed ownership of the car and took possession of it, producing documents purportedly proving its transfer in his name. Upon inquiry with the Regional Transport Office (RTO) Haldwani, Respondent No. 2 discovered that the vehicle had been transferred in 2004 based on an affidavit purportedly bearing his signature. Respondent No. 2 denies having signed any such affidavit and alleges forgery and fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the Applicant.

5. On these allegations, Respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Learned Second Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, who, after examining the complainant and his witness under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and after perusing documentary evidence including the disputed affidavit (Paper No. 7A/6), issued process against the Applicant under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 506 IPC.

6. The said order was challenged through Criminal Revision No. 96 of 2017 before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, which was dismissed on 15.05.2018. Aggrieved, the Applicant has approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the entire case arises out of a property dispute between family members and lacks the essential Criminal Misc. Application No. 877 of 2018, Prakash Chandra Bhagat Vs State of Uttarakhand And Another 2 Ashish Naithani J. criminal intent required to constitute offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 506 IPC.

9. It was submitted that the transfer of the vehicle in question was effected with the consent of other family members, evidenced by their "No Objection Certificates," and that the Applicant had not forged the signature of Respondent No. 2 on the disputed affidavit.

10. Learned counsel further contended that the witness examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is the father-in-law of Respondent No. 2 and is therefore an interested witness. It was argued that the criminal complaintis a device to harass the Applicant due to long-standing enmity.

11. Emphasis was laid on the fact that the Applicant has not used the said vehicle since the demise of their elder brother, and that the claim of ownership was never exercised in a manner to deprive Respondent No. 2 of any actual possession.

12. Lastly, it was urged that the learned Magistrate acted mechanically in issuing process without properly scrutinising the material on record, and the revisional court failed to appreciate the legal infirmities in the summoning order.

13. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State of Uttarakhand, submitted that the order passed by the Magistrate was well-reasoned and based on sufficient prima facie material. It was contended that no ground is made out for quashing the proceedings at the threshold.

14. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, refuted the contentions of the Applicant and submitted that the complaint was filed after the RTO Haldwani confirmed that the vehicle was transferred based on a forged Criminal Misc. Application No. 877 of 2018, Prakash Chandra Bhagat Vs State of Uttarakhand And Another 3 Ashish Naithani J. affidavit bearing Respondent No. 2’s signature. The complainant had never executed the affidavit in question (Paper No. 7A/6).

15. It was further submitted that the complainant and his witness had made categorical statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., respectively, alleging deliberate forgery, fraud, and threats. The complainant had also filed an RTI application and made prior police complaints, which were not acted upon.

16. This Court has carefully perused the complaint, the summoning order, the revisional order, and the pleadings as well as the annexures filed by the parties. The scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited and is to be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.

17. The complainant has supported his case with a specific averment that his signature was forged in an affidavit dated 2004, on the basis of which the Applicant secured registration of the vehicle in his name.

18. The documentary material includes the RTI responses, copies of complaints filed before police authorities, and the affidavit allegedly bearing the forged signature. Witness Harish Chandra Sunal corroborated the complaint and confirmed that the complainant's signature was forged.

19. The allegation of forgery, if proved, would clearly fall within the mischief of Sections 467 and 468 IPC. Likewise, misrepresenting ownership of property on the basis of forged documents may attract Section 420 IPC. The assertion of criminal intimidation made in the complaint also discloses ingredients of Section 506 IPC. Criminal Misc. Application No. 877 of 2018, Prakash Chandra Bhagat Vs State of Uttarakhand And Another 4 Ashish Naithani J.

20. The contentions raised by the Applicant, such as the alleged familial consent, the defence of non-usage, or the claim of being falsely implicated, are all matters of defence which require an appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

21. At the stage of summoning, the court is required only to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out. It is not open to examine the defence of the accused or weigh the probative value of the evidence. The summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate reflects application of mind and consideration of both oral and documentary evidence.

22. The revisional court also undertook an independent assessment of the material on record and recorded findings affirming the prima facie satisfaction of the Magistrate. No perversity, jurisdictional error, or miscarriage of justice is evident so as to warrant interference. ORDER In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complaint discloses commission of cognizable offences and that the orders dated 09.06.2017 and

15.05.2018 do not suffer from any manifest illegality or abuse of process. No case is made out for the invocation of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 877 of 2018 is hereby dismissed. Dated:08.07.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani J.) Criminal Misc. Application No. 877 of 2018, Prakash Chandra Bhagat Vs State of Uttarakhand And Another 5 Ashish Naithani J.