Uttarakhand High Court
29 April vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 29 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:3230
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 279 of 2024
29 April, 2025
Dr. Samrat Sharma --Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for applicant,
appeared through video conferencing.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present C482 application,
the applicant has put to challenge the judgment and
order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District
Haridwar, in Complaint Case No.16 of 2023 Dr. Samrat
Sharma Vs. Poonam Agarwal, whereby, the application
moved by the applicant was rejected on the ground that
the case of the applicant is civil in nature and further
the revisional order dated 24.01.2024 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in
Criminal Revision No.112 of 2023 Dr. Samrat Sharma
Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, which was also
dismissed on the same ground given by learned
Additional CJM, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the
applicant had a good acquaintance and interaction
with respondent No.2 and they were living in a live-in
relationship for about six years. In the year 2020,
respondent No.2 told applicant that she is going to
1
2025:UHC:3230
start a committee of 20 people in her college, in which
the share of each person will be Rs.4,000/- which
would be run for 26 months and after 26 months, total
Rs.1,50,000/- will be received. The applicant kept on
paying Rs.5,000/- every month to respondent No.2
through Google Pay and has paid a total amount of
Rs.1,50,000/-. On 18.09.2022, when the committee’s
term was about to come to an end, the respondent
No.2 stated that she will return the money in
November. While demanding the said money in
November, the respondent No.2 did not return the
same and put the applicant’s number on block list.
When the applicant went to the college of respondent
No.2, he came to know that she was married to a
person namely Sunil Singhal (respondent No.3). When
he asked for the aforesaid money, respondent No.2
stated that she would not return the money and would
trapped him in a false case if he asked for the money.
Thereafter, the applicant through his advocate sent a
demand notice dated 29.11.2022 by registered post to
respondent No.2, which was received by respondent
No.2 on 30.11.2022, but even after receiving the
notice, respondent No.2 did not return the money and
sent a reply to the notice on wrong facts. The applicant
gave applications to the concerned police station and
SSP regarding this incident, but when no action was
taken, a complaint was filed in the Court requesting to
summon and to punish the respondents under Section
406 IPC.
4. Thereafter, in the learned Court below the
statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure were recorded to prima-facie prove
2
2025:UHC:3230
that the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is
made out against the respondent No.2. Learned
Additional CJM rejected the aforesaid complaint being
Complaint Case No.16 of 2023 Dr. Samrat Sharma Vs.
Poonam Agarwal, filed by the applicant vide judgment
and order dated 08.08.2023 on the ground that the
case of the applicant is civil in nature. Thereafter, the
applicant filed a Criminal Revision No.112 of 2023 Dr.
Samrat Sharma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others,
challenging the impugned order dated 08.08.2023
passed by the learned ACJM, which, too was dismissed
vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2024 on the
same ground. Thus, the applicant is before this Court
by challenging both impugned orders.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the applicant has delivered the aforesaid money to
the respondent No.2 in trust for a particular purpose
and the respondent was bound to return the aforesaid
money to the applicant. Despite the demand notice,
respondent No.2 did not return the money to the
applicant. Thus, the breach of trust had been
committed by the respondent No.2. The Google Pay
amount transmitted in the account of respondent No.2
is the clear evidence which had not been considered by
both the Courts below and both the Courts below have
rejected the complaint as well as the criminal revision
of the applicant, without applying its mind.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel contended
that both the Courts below have rightly passed the
impugned orders and rightly held that the offence is of
civil in nature, thus, the present C482 application
deserves to be dismissed. There is concurrent findings
3
2025:UHC:3230
of both the Courts against the applicant.
7. Learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Roorkee, Haridwar has recorded its reasoning in Para 8
and 9 of the judgment and order dated 24.01.2024 and
came to this conclusion that no interference was
warranted in the judgment and order passed by the
learned ACJM.
8. Having perused both the impugned orders
and examining the material available on record, this
Court is of the view that the reasoning assigned by the
learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Revisional
Court, is perfect and need no interference.
9. Accordingly, the present C482 application is
dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
29.04.2025
PN
PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6a
ab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
NEGI
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D
5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.04.30 16:18:00 +05’30’
4
[ad_1]
Source link