Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 31 March, 2026
2026:UHC:2272
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1823 of 2018
31st March, 2026
Sriram ..........Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another ......Respondents
With
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 640 of 2024
Natthulal ..........Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another ......Respondents
With
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 766 of 2018
Abdul Wajid ..........Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another ......Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary and Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for
the applicant.
Mr. Rakesh Joshi and Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief Holders for
the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J. (Oral)
Present applications under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed seeking
quashing of the chargesheets and the
summoning/cognizance orders dated 17.02.2018 and
1
19.06.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class/1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),
District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.1416
of 2018, which is under challenged in C-482 No.1823
of 2018; the cognizance/summoning order dated
06.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
(First), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in
Criminal Case No.6191 of 2021, which is under
challenge in C-482 No.640 of 2024; and the
cognizance/summoning order dated 06.12.2021
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First),
Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal
Case No.6191 of 2021, challenged in C-482 No.766 of
2024, as well as the entire criminal proceedings
arising therefrom.
2. Since common questions of law and fact are
involved in the aforesaid applications, particularly as
they arise out of the same set of transactions and
allegations, the matters are being decided together by
this common judgment. However, for the sake of
convenience, the facts of C-482 No.1823 of 2018 are
being taken as the leading case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that an F.I.R. was lodged by Sulohita Negi,
2
Deputy Education Officer, Gadarpur, District Udham
Singh Nagar, alleging that one Sriram (applicant in C-
482 No.1823 of 2018) had secured appointment in the
Education Department as Assistant Teacher on
18.03.2005 on the basis of a false Permanent Resident
Certificate. It is alleged that the said certificate was
obtained fraudulently and, consequently, the services
of the applicant were terminated on 15.10.2016. After
completion of investigation, a chargesheet was
submitted against the applicant Sriram, while the
investigation in respect of other accused persons was
stated to be continuing.
4. It is further submitted that the applicant in
C-482 No.640 of 2024 is the father-in-law of Sriram,
whereas the applicant in C-482 No.766 of 2024 was
working as Revenue Inspector, and the allegation
against him is that he connived with the co-accused
and facilitated preparation of the alleged forged
permanent resident certificate; that, the order
cancelling the permanent resident certificate and the
consequential termination were challenged by the
applicant by filing Writ Petition (M/S) Nos.249 of 2015,
810 of 2015 and 2954 of 2017; that, the learned Single
Judge of this Court, by judgment and order dated
3
20.08.2018, upheld the cancellation of the permanent
resident certificate. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant
preferred Special Appeal Nos.273 of 2018 and 274 of
2018, which were dismissed by the Division Bench of
this Court by judgment and order dated 31.05.2018.
Thereafter, the applicant approached the Hon’ble
Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Nos.23150-23151 of 2018, which came to be
dismissed by order dated 07.09.2018, with the
following clarification:
“We see no reason to interfere with the impugned
orders. The special leave petitions are accordingly
dismissed. However, we clarify that as a result of the
impugned order no recovery of any dues shall be made
from the petitioner nor shall he be subjected to any
criminal proceedings.”
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would
further submit that the aforesaid observation of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly restrains initiation or
continuation of criminal proceedings against the
applicant arising out of the same cause of action.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further
submits that the F.I.R. was lodged on 15.10.2016,
whereas the alleged appointment of the applicant on
4
the basis of the permanent resident certificate was
made on 18.03.2005, thus there is a delay of about 11
years in lodging the F.I.R., for which no plausible
explanation has been given by the concerned
department. It is further submitted that at the time of
appointment, the permanent resident certificate and
other documents were duly verified by the competent
authorities and the selection committee, and no
objection was raised at that stage. It is also contended
that the revenue authorities had conducted physical
verification before issuing the certificate, and therefore
the applicant cannot be held responsible for the
alleged irregularities. It is also submitted that the
Investigating Officer conducted the investigation in a
routine manner, without collecting cogent evidence,
and the learned trial court mechanically took
cognizance without proper application of judicial mind.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed
the applications and submitted that the applicant had
fraudulently obtained the permanent resident
certificate, and on the basis of the said certificate had
secured government employment. However, learned
State counsel does not dispute the fact that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLP, had
5
clearly observed that the applicant shall not be
subjected to any criminal proceedings as a
consequence of the impugned orders.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
9. The undisputed position emerging from the
record is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
dismissing the Special Leave Petition, categorically
clarified that the petitioner shall not be subjected to
any criminal proceedings as a result of the impugned
orders. The said observation of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution
of India, and the same is required to be strictly
complied with by all courts and authorities. The
continuation of the criminal proceedings in the
present case, despite the aforesaid clarification of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, would therefore be contrary to
the binding directions of the Apex Court. It is well
settled that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent
abuse of the process of the court and to secure the
ends of justice.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has
6
held that criminal proceedings can be quashed where
their continuation would amount to abuse of the
process of law. Similarly, in Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs
Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that summoning of an
accused is a serious matter and the Magistrate must
apply his judicial mind before issuing process.
Further, in Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9
SCC 460, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that
the inherent power of the High Court can be exercised
where continuation of criminal proceedings would
result in miscarriage of justice. In the present case, in
view of the specific clarification issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the applicants cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law.
11. Accordingly, the present C-482 applications
deserve to be allowed and are, accordingly, allowed.
The chargesheets, the summoning/cognizance orders
dated 17.02.2018 and 19.06.2018 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class /1st Additional
Civil Judge (Senior Division), District Udham Singh
Nagar in Criminal Case No.1416 of 2018 (subject
matter of C-482 No.1823 of 2018), as well as the
7
cognizance/summoning orders dated 06.12.2021
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First),
Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal
Case No.6191 of 2021 (subject matter of C-482 No.640
of 2024 and C-482 No.766 of 2024), along with the
entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal cases, are
hereby quashed.
12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
27.03.2026
Mamta
MA Digitally signed by MAMTA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
MTA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f2
44f3e584af1449e430ef900bf0
9a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d
RANI
9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66
dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004
ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.04.02 11:52:55
+05'30'
8
