Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1630/2022 on 4 May, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C482 No.1630 of 2022
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Advocate for the
applicant.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the
State of Uttarakhand.
There is no representation for
respondent no.2.
2. An F.I.R. was lodged at the instance
of the applicant against respondent no.2
under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 469 of
the I.P.C., alleging, inter alia, that
respondent no.2, by way of fraudulent
interpolation and manipulation of
Government records, has falsely
recorded the name of the applicant as
her husband, despite there being no
marital relationship between them. It is
further alleged that such deliberate
misrepresentation has caused serious
prejudice and irreparable damage to the
reputation and social standing of the
applicant. Upon completion of
investigation, however, the Investigating
Agency submitted a charge-sheet only
under Section 420 I.P.C. against
respondent no.2. The learned trial Court,
vide order dated 10.05.2022, took
cognizance and proceeded to frame
charges against respondent no.2 under
Section 420 I.P.C. alone. Aggrieved by
the said order of charge, the applicant
preferred a Criminal Revision, which
came to be dismissed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet,
District Almora, vide judgment dated
06.08.2022, holding that at the stage of
framing of charge, the Court is only
required to form a prima facie opinion
and cannot undertake a meticulous
examination of evidence or conduct a
mini trial.
3. It is pertinent to note that despite
sufficient opportunities, no counter
affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent no.2, nor has any counsel
put in appearance on her behalf on the
last two dates of hearing, which prima
facie indicates lack of contest to the
present proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
has drawn the attention of this Court to
various documents, including the
Maternity Card, Aadhaar Card, LIC
records, and Gas Connection papers of
respondent no.2, wherein the name of
the applicant has been deliberately and
consistently recorded as her husband. It
is submitted that these documents
clearly demonstrate a continuing course
of conduct on the part of respondent
no.2 to falsely project the applicant as
her spouse, thereby constituting not only
cheating but also offences relating to
forgery and defamation, which have not
been adequately considered by the
Courts below.
5. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. The
F.I.R. was lodged alleging commission of
offences not only under Section 420
I.P.C., but also under Sections 467, 468
and 469 I.P.C., on the specific accusation
that respondent no.2, by way of
deliberate interpolation and manipulation
of Government and public records,
projected the applicant as her husband
despite there being no subsisting marital
relationship. The allegations, thus, are
not confined merely to cheating, but
extend to serious offences involving
forgery of valuable security, forgery for
the purpose of cheating, and harm to
reputation. From the material placed
before the Court, including the Maternity
Card, Aadhaar Card, LIC records and Gas
Connection documents, it prima facie
appears that the name of the applicant
has been consistently recorded as
husband of respondent no.2 across
multiple independent documents. Such
repeated and consistent entries, if found
to be manipulated or falsely procured,
cannot be said to be an isolated act of
deception but rather indicate a
continuing course of conduct, attracting
ingredients of offences beyond Section
420 I.P.C.
6. It is well settled that at the stage of
framing of charge, the Court is required
to evaluate the material on record only
to the extent of forming a prima facie
opinion as to whether sufficient ground
exists for proceeding against the
accused. However, such prima facie
satisfaction must be based on a holistic
consideration of the entire material
collected during investigation. The Court
cannot adopt a narrow or truncated
approach by confining itself to a single
offence, when the allegations and
supporting material disclose ingredients
of other cognizable offences as well.
7. In the present case, both the
learned trial Court as well as the
revisional Court appear to have failed to
advert to the nature of allegations and
the documentary material in its correct
perspective. The order framing charge
only under Section 420 I.P.C., without
considering whether a prima facie case is
made out under Sections 467, 468 and
469 I.P.C., suffers from non-application
of mind and a mechanical exercise of
jurisdiction.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal
Miscellaneous Application is allowed and
the impugned order dated 10.05.2022
passed by the learned trial Court, as well
as the revisional judgment dated
06.08.2022 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ranikhet,
District Almora, are hereby set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the
learned trial Court with a direction to
consider the entire material collected
during investigation afresh and pass a
reasoned order on the question of
framing of charges, in accordance with
law, including consideration of offences
under Sections 467, 468 and 469 I.P.C.,
if made out on the basis of the record.
9. It is made clear that this Court has
not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the case, and the learned trial Court
shall proceed independently,
untrammelled by any observations made
herein.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
04.05.2026
Arpan
ARPAN
Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20d
ddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
JAISWAL
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98
7446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.05.04 18:01:05 +05’30’
[ad_1]
Source link
