Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Chauhan And Others) Whereby Learned … on 23 February, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPCRL No. 344, 347 and 350 of 2026
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Shiv Bhatt, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned AGA with Ms.
Shweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the
State.
3. These three writ petitions have been preferred
by the petitioners Rahul Bhatt, Amit Negi and Sanjay
Kumar Jain under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India challenging the summoning order dated
23.04.2025 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD) /
Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun in complaint
case no. 17 of 2023 (Ajeet Singh Vs. Sanjay Kumar
Chauhan and others) whereby learned Addl. Civil
Judge (JD), Rishikesh summoned all the petitioners
along with Sanjay Kumar Chauhan and Rishabh Garg
the respondents no. 4 and 5 herein for the offences
punishable under Section 420, 406, 504, 506 read with
Section 120B IPC.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that in view of the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Foods
Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and
another (1998) 5 SCC 749, summoning order can be
challenged in a writ petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the
petitioners placed reliance particularly to paragraph 26
and 28 of the aforesaid judgment, which reads as
under:
“26. Nomenclature under which petition is filed is
not quite relevant and that does not debar the court from
exercising its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses
unless there is special procedure prescribed which procedure
is mandatory. If in a case like the present one the court finds
that the appellants could not invoke its jurisdiction under
Article 226, the court can certainly treat the petition as one
under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code. It may not
however, be lost sight of that provisions exist in the Code of
revision and appeal but some time for immediate relief
Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 may have to be
resorted to for correcting some grave errors that might be
committed by the subordinate courts. The present petition
though filed in the High Court as one under Articles 226
and 227 could well be treated under Article 227 of the
Constitution.
28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case
is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion
as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to
bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the
complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The
order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect
that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the
law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of
allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral
and documentary in support thereof and would that be
sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge
home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent
spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence
before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to
carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may
even himself put questions to the complainant and his
witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the
allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is
prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”
5. I have gone through with this judgment and this
Court is of the view that summoning order can be
challenged also in a writ petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
6. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are
employees of Bridge, Ropeway, Tunnel and other
Infrastructure Development Corporation of
Uttarakhand Ltd (BRIDCUL). BRIDCUL floated a
tender for construction of registration office cum
transit camp at Rishikesh, District – Dehradun. In the
tender process, Sanjay Kumar Chauhan proprietor of
M/s Mahalaxmi Construction was declared as L1 and
thereafter, BRIDCUL entered into an agreement with
Sanjay Kumar Chauhan proprietor of M/s Mahalaxmi
Construction on 20.12.2019. Sanjay Kumar Chauhan
proprietor of M/s Mahalaxmi Construction without
taking consent from BRIDCUL sublet the contract to
complainant – Ajeet Singh. He also pointed that work
has already been completed and even possession has
been handed over to BRIDCUL and after completion
of the work, full and payment of Rs. 10.67 crores has
been paid to to M/s Mahalaxmi Construction. He
submits that entire cost towards completion project
was already given to proprietor of M/s Mahalaxmi
Construction – Sanjay Kumar Chauhan but it appears
from the complaint that proprietor of M/s Mahalaxmi
Construction Sanjay Kumar Chauhan has not paid
amount to the complainant. He argued that BRIDCUL
is answerable to proprietor of M/s Mahalaxmi
Construction Sanjay Kumar Chauhan and not to the
complainant sub contractor, since without taking
consent from the BRIDCUL, proprietor of M/s
Mahalaxmi Construction Sanjay Kumar Chauhan has
sublet the contract to Ajeet Singh the complainant. He
further submits that in fact dispute is in between
proprietor of M/s Mahalaxmi Construction Sanjay
Kumar Chauhan and the complainant Ajeet Singh and
BRIDCUL is not answerable for making any payment
to the complainant, which is evident from the fact that
there is no complaint from M/s Mahalaxmi
Construction the main contractor.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submits that the learned Magistrate without applying
his mind and nature of the allegations made in the
complaint and also without scrutinizing the evidence
summoned the petitioners.
8. Respondent no. 1 – State is only formal party
though represented by Ms. Shweta Badola Dobhal,
learned Brief Holder for the State.
9. Respondent no. 2 is the complainant and
respondent no. 3 and 4 are the person, who are also
implicated as an accused in the complaint case.
10. Issue notice to respondent no. 2 to 4.
11. Steps be taken within a week.
12. List on 23.03.2026.
13. In the meantime, taking into consideration that
full and final payment has been made to the main
contractor, the effect and operation of summoning
order dated 23.04.2025 passed by Civil Judge (JD) /
Judicial Magistrate Rishikesh in complaint case no. 17
of 2023 is stayed qua the petitioners.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
23.02.2026
SKS
.
