Judgment Reserved on : 10.11.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 11.12.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.1904 of 2021 Brij Mohan Painuly and Another .....Applicants Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & Another ...Respondents Presence: Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for the Applicants.

Mr. N.S. Kanyal, learned counsel for the State.

Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Applicants, namely Brij Mohan Painuly and his son Lalit Mohan Painuly, seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 69 of 2021, titled State vs. Brij Mohan Painuly and others, pending before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. The Applicants further seek quashing of the charge-sheet submitted in the said case, as well as the cognizance and summoning order dated 04.04.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate, whereby they were summoned to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 406, 506 and 120 B IPC.

2. The genesis of the criminal proceedings lies in a complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2, Manoj Dhoundiyal, wherein it is alleged that the Applicants had failed to return certain amounts claimed to have been taken from the complainant in connection with a family property-related issue. Based on the complaint, an FIR was lodged and an investigation was undertaken by the Police, culminating in the submission of a charge- sheet under the aforementioned penal provisions. Upon receiving the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the Applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted that the entire dispute is civil in nature and arises out of financial transactions within an extended family. It was urged that even if the complaint is taken at its face value, no act of entrustment is alleged so as to attract Section 406 IPC. It was further submitted that mere failure to repay money cannot, by itself, constitute criminal breach of trust unless dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction is shown, which is not the case here.

4. Learned counsel for the Applicants further submitted that the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC are wholly absent, since there is no allegation that at the time of receiving the money, the Applicants had any fraudulent or dishonest intention. The complaint, even if accepted in its entirety, reveals at best a dispute relating to monetary refund arising out of family arrangements, which cannot be given the colour of a criminal offence.

5. It was next submitted that the offence under Section 506 IPC is also not made out, as the allegations regarding threat or intimidation are vague and lacking in particulars. Learned counsel argued that the allegations have been made only to bring in a penal provision and exert pressure, and no specific, credible or proximate act of criminal intimidation has been disclosed.

6. Learned Counsel for the Applicants further submitted that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance in a routine and mechanical manner, without applying judicial mind to the material on record. It was contended that the summoning order dated 04.04.2021 does not reflect any consideration of the legal ingredients of the offences alleged and is, therefore, vitiated. According to the Applicants, the summoning order is cyclostyled in nature and does not record any reasons, thereby rendering it unsustainable in law.

7. Learned AGA appearing for the State submitted that the charge- sheet has been filed after due and proper investigation and that the material collected by the Investigating Officer prima facie discloses the commission of the offences alleged. It was contended that, at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Court is required only to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists, and that the adequacy or sufficiency of