AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
For the reasons indicated, delay condonation applications (IA Nos.2 of 2026) are allowed. Delay in filing the counter affidavit is condoned. Counter affidavit filed by the State in C528/1575/2026 and C528/1714/2026, is taken on record.
Since all these applications filed under Section 528 of BNSS and under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are arising out the same FIR No.02 of 2015 dated 17.10.2015 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC; same Charge-sheet No.01 of 2017 dated 21.08.2017 and summoning order dated 13.10.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh, in Criminal Case No.1443 of 2017 State Vs. Ummed Singh and Others, hence, these applications are being taken up together and being decided by the common judgment.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a First Information Report was registered on 17.10.2015 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. As per the contents of the said FIR, the incident pertains to the year 2008-2009 to 2013-2014 and the allegations were that a fictitious bank account was opened by the Secretary, Mini Bank Satgal and a sum of Rs. 6,92,937/- was misappropriated by the Secretary and in the inquiry report submitted by the District Development Officer, Pithoragarh, dated 21.05.2015, the responsibility was fixed on the Secretary, Mini Bank Satgal.
It is contended by learned counsel for applicants that these are the cases of parity as charge-sheet filed against one co-accused person-Bhupendra Singh Bisht, pursuant to self same F.I.R. has already been quashed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C482 No.1793 of 2017 Bhupendra Singh Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2025. He further submits that the role of applicants in these C528 and C482 applications is same to that of applicant-Bhupendra Singh Bisht in C482 No.1793 of 2017. Thus, these matters are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22.12.2025.
Vide earlier order dated 30.09.2026, learned State Counsel was asked to seek instruction in the matter as to whether judgment and order dated 22.12.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench in C482 No.1793 of 2017 Bhupendra Singh Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court or not.
Today, learned State Counsel, in instruction, submits that the judgment and order dated 22.12.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench in C482 No.1793 of 2017 has not been challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court.
In view of the statements made by learned counsel for the parties, these applications are allowed in terms of judgment and order dated 22.12.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench in C482 No.1793 of 2017 Bhupendra Singh Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. Accordingly, the impugned charge-sheet dated 21.08.2017, cognizance order dated 13.10.2017, passed by learned CJM, Pithoragarh and the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No.1443 of 2017, State vs. Umed Singh and others, under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 406, 409 and 120-B IPC are quashed qua the applicants in these C528 and C482 applications.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.