SL.

No

Date

Office Notes,

reports, orders or

proceedings or

directions and

Registrar’s order

with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

C482 No. 1545 of 2022

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for

the applicant.

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Assistant Advocate

General assisted by Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief

Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.

The

applicant

in

the

present

C482

Application, has given a challenge to the

Chargesheet, being Chargesheet No. 206 of 2022

dated 16^th March, 2022, which has been submitted

by the Investigating Officer, on culmination of the

investigation into the set of allegations levelled in

the FIR No. 368 of 2016 dated 8^th November, 2016,

whereby, the offences, which had been complained

of, as against the present applicant to be the

offences under Sections 419, 420 and 506 of the

IPC.

The present applicant is named in the FIR

and the set of allegation relates to the money

transaction, which has been referred to therein. But

the question, in the present C482 Application, is

pertaining

to

the

summoning

order

dated

24.05.2022, to which, cognizance has been taken

for the offences referred to hereinabove, to be tried

by the Trial Court.

This Court is of the view, that looking to the

nature of offences, and particularly, the tenacity of

the arguments, as extended by the learned counsel

for the applicant, it requires to venture into the

merits of the matter, for the purpose of settlement

of the liability, as it has been complained of in the

FIR, which was registered on 26^th May, 2015. But

that may not be the scope of Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C., because the Court’s dealing with Section

482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot act as a substitute to a

trial for appreciating the evidence in order to arrive

at a conclusion about the prima facie establishment

of evidence complained of.

In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

Court as reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773, Satender

Kumar

Antil

Vs.

Central

Bureau

of

Investigation and another, the Hon’ble Apex

Court has dealt with, that in those category of

offences, where chargesheet has been submitted and

cognizance has been taken and which carries the

sentence of less than seven years, it has been

classified under category “A” nature of offences, as

provided in para 3 of the said judgment and the

recourse available to the accused person against

whom the chargesheet has been submitted and

cognizance has been taken has been classified under

Sub-clause (e) of category ‘A’ of offences, which

provides that the Bail Application of such an

accused person, whose nature of offence falls to be

under category ‘A”, on his appearance before the

court below, it would be decided without the

accused being taken under custody or by granting

an interim order till the Bail Application itself is

decided on merits.

In

that

eventuality,

the

apprehension

expressed by the learned counsel for the applicant

that owing to the issuance of summoning order, in

all probability, on the surrender being made by him,

he may not be arrested, that stands protected

otherwise under Sub-clause (e) of category ‘A’ of

offences and the parameters as laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil

(Supra).

In that eventuality, the present C482

Application is being disposed of with the liberty left

open for the applicant to surrender himself before

the Court and seeks his recourse, as provided in

para 3 of category ‘A’ nature of offences under

clause (e) by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender

Kumar Antil (Supra).

Subject to the aforesaid exception, the

present C482 Application, which requires a factual

appreciation being beyond the scope of Section 482

of the Cr.P.C., is being disposed of for enabling the

applicant to resort to the proceedings as laid down

in the judgment of Satender Kumar Antil

(Supra).

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)