State of Uttarakhand v. Mr. Satya Dev Prakash, learned counsel for the

Judgment

1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been instituted by the Applicant, Sunil Chander Naithani, seeking to set aside the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2024. The revision had assailed the trial court’s order dated

28.10.2024 rejecting the Applicant’s discharge application Criminal Case No. 579 of 2021, arising from FIR No. 32 of 2015 registered at Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun.

The FIR was lodged on 09.02.2015 on the complaint of the Chief Medical Superintendent, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Joint Hospital, Dehradun, alleging that the travel agency "Kala Tour and Travels" had submitted forged taxi hire bills amounting to ₹2,27,000, purportedly for the use of the Hon’ble Chief Minister’s Criminal Misc. Application No.1845 of 2025, Sunil Chander Naithani Vs. State of Uttarakhand- 1 Ashish Naithani J. office. The complaint alleged that these bills were fraudulently prepared and wrongly honoured from the hospital’s account.

3. During the investigation, two police reports were initially submitted, namely Charge Sheet Nos. 65/2016 and 65A/2016, neither of which named the present Applicant. Thereafter, a supplementary charge sheet bearing No. 65B/2020 was filed on

21.01.2020, wherein the Applicant was, for the first time, arrayed as an accused, nearly five years after the registration of the FIR.

4. The prosecution case alleges that five billsbearing dates

27.05.2012, 29.06.2012, 12.07.2012, 23.07.2012, and 12.08.2012were forged and submitted by the co-accused Sushil Uniyal and Jyoti Kala of Kala Tour and Travels. These bills were first attested by Uttam Singh Rawat, Public Health Officer attached to the office of the then Chief Minister, and thereafter verified by CMS R.S. Aswal. The bills were ultimately processed and paid from the coronation hospital account.

5. The Applicant was serving as Administrative Officer at Coronation Hospital during the relevant period. According to the record, the cheques through which payments were made bore the signatures of CMS R.S. Aswal and Dr. S.K. Verma. The Applicant’s role, as described in the chargesheet, was limited to maintaining records of cheques already approved and passed by his superiors.

6. The Applicant filed an application for discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 262 of BNSS), contending that no material collected during the investigation disclosed his involvement in the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. The said Criminal Misc. Application No.1845 of 2025, Sunil Chander Naithani Vs. State of Uttarakhand- 2 Ashish Naithani J. application was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on

28.10.2024.

7. Aggrieved, the Applicant preferred Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2024, which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 01.08.2025 through a non-speaking order. The learned revisional court upheld the rejection of discharge without discussing the Applicant’s submissions or analysing the specific evidence attributed to him.

8. The Applicant thereafter invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS, asserting that continuation of proceedings in the absence of prima facie material amounts to a miscarriage of justice.

9. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the entire case arises out of allegedly forged bills prepared by the co-accused, and that the Applicant was neither the maker of the documents nor involved in their attestation, verification or approval. It was contended that each of the disputed bills had already been scrutinised and approved by senior officersUttam Singh Rawat and CMS R.S. Aswalprior to being processed at the hospital. The Applicant merely performed ministerial duties in maintaining entries of cheques approved by his superiors.

10. It was argued that the Applicant was not named in the FIR or the first two chargesheets, and his implication for the first time in the supplementary chargesheet filed in 2020, after a gap of five years, reflects a complete absence of incriminating material collected during the earlier phases of investigation. Learned Criminal Misc. Application No.1845 of 2025, Sunil Chander Naithani Vs. State of Uttarakhand- 3 Ashish Naithani J. counsel submitted that such belated addition without supporting evidence amounts to abuse of process.

11. Learned counsel emphasised that there is no statement, document or electronic record linking the Applicant to the alleged conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. It was submitted that there is no material showing any “meeting of minds” or even communication between the Applicant and the co-accused. All dealings with the travel agency were by CMS R.S. Aswal alone.

12. It was urged that the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, namely deception, dishonest inducement and mens rea, are wholly absent insofar as the Applicant is concerned.

13. Learned counsel argued that the allegations under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC are wholly unsustainable against the Applicant because he is not the maker of the allegedly forged bills, nor is there any allegation that he used such documents with knowledge of their falsity. The Applicant acted solely on the attestation of superior officers, consistent with his administrative duties.

14. It was further submitted that the revisional court order dated 01.08.2025 is a non-speaking order that fails to record reasons, examine the material on record, or address the Applicant’s detailed submissions. The absence of judicial reasoning, according to learned counsel, renders the order unsustainable in law.

15. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that, in any case, no prima facie case is made out against the Applicant to Criminal Misc. Application No.1845 of 2025, Sunil Chander Naithani Vs. State of Uttarakhand- 4 Ashish Naithani J. justify framing of charges under Section 251 BNSS. Continuation of proceedings would amount to harassment of a senior citizen and an abuse of the process of law.

16. Learned AGA appearing for the State opposed the application and submitted that the matter is at the stage of framing of charge, and that the trial court is only required to assess whether there exists sufficient ground to presume commission of the offence. It was submitted that even a strong suspicion is enough to proceed to trial.

17. Learned AGA contended that the Applicant was part of the administrative chain through which the payments were processed, and that the extent of his knowledge, intention or participation can only be tested at trial. It was argued that the role of each accused must be evaluated cumulatively and that discharge at this stage is neither warranted nor legally justified.

18. It was further contended the supplementary chargesheet includes material suggesting that the Applicant made entries in the records relating to the disputed cheques and processed papers in relation to the alleged forged bills. According to learned AGA, this constitutes sufficient material for the trial court to examine his culpability during the trial.

19. Learned AGA submitted that the revisional court has rightly declined to interfere with the trial court’s order, and that no case is made out for exercise of inherent or supervisory jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. Criminal Misc. Application No.1845 of 2025, Sunil Chander Naithani Vs. State of Uttarakhand- 5 Ashish Naithani J.

20. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

21. At the outset, it is evident that the discharge court as well as the revisional court were dealing with the question whether the material collected during the investigation, if taken at its face value, disclosed sufficient ground to proceed against the Applicant. At the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the Court does not undertake a meticulous evaluation of the probative value of evidence, nor does it weigh the defence material. The inquiry is limited to determining whether the accusations, supported by the case diary and police report, give rise to a prima facie case or at least a plausible suspicion requiring trial.

22. The Applicant has emphasised the absence of direct evidence indicating his participation in the alleged preparation of forged bills or any conspiracy with the co-accused. These submissions, though substantial, pertain to matters touching upon factual matrix, evidentiary appreciation and inferences regarding intention or knowledge, all of which fall within the domain of the trial court. Whether the Applicant’s role was purely ministerial, whether he acted solely on the directions of superior officers, and whether he had any knowledge of the alleged irregularities are questions that can be adjudicated only after the evidence unfolds.

23. The material placed before the discharge court does indicate that the disputed cheques and files passed through the Applicant as part of the administrative workflow. The precise extent and nature of his involvement, and whether such Criminal Misc. Application No.1845 of 2025, Sunil Chander Naithani Vs. State of Uttarakhand- 6 Ashish Naithani J. involvement bears a culpable element, cannot be conclusively assessed at this stage. The existence of suspicion, even if not strong enough to pre-judge guilt, is sufficient to warrant a full trial, provided such suspicion is founded on material forming part of the chargesheet.

24. The revisional court’s order dated 01.08.2025 undoubtedly succinct and does not elaborate on each submission advanced before it. However, brevity in itself does not render the order illegal, provided the revisional court’s conclusion falls within the permissible parameters of revisional scrutiny. This Court is not sitting in further appeal over the order of discharge or the revisional order, nor can it convert proceedings under Section 528 BNSS into a second revisional forum, which the statute expressly prohibits.

25. The record does not reveal that the discharge court or the revisional court acted without jurisdiction or ignored any material of such nature that its consideration would have inexorably led to discharge. The core contention of the Applicantthat ‘the evidence is insufficient to implicate him’ relates to the adequacy and reliability of the prosecution material, which is not the lens through which the Court examines a challenge at the pre-trial stage under Section 528.

26. The Applicant will have the full opportunity during trial to cross-examine witnesses, challenge the prosecution’s narrative, and establish that his role was merely administrative and devoid of mens rea. The safeguards available at trial sufficiently protect his rights, and no exceptional circumstance emerges on the present Criminal Misc. Application No.1845 of 2025, Sunil Chander Naithani Vs. State of Uttarakhand- 7 Ashish Naithani J. record warranting exercise of inherent or supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to terminate the proceedings at this stage.

27. In this backdrop, and having considered the narrow scope of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, this Court concludes that the impugned orders do not suffer from perversity, illegality or any jurisdictional defect warranting interference. ORDER Having considered the matter in its entirety, this Court finds no ground to exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to interfere with the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 305 of 2024. The revisional court has acted within the bounds of its authority, and no perversity or material irregularity is shown that would justify supervisory intervention. Consequently, this Court declines to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS for setting aside the impugned order or for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 579 of 2021 arising out of FIR No. 32 of 2015. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. (Ashish Naithani J.) Dated:24.11.2025 NR/ Criminal Misc. Application No.1845 of 2025, Sunil Chander Naithani Vs. State of Uttarakhand- 8 Ashish Naithani J.