Uttarakhand High Court
4 July vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 14 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6054
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 2526 of 2023
14 July, 2025
Vinod Kumar
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard on restoration application (MCRC No.4/2025).
1. The restoration application has been filed by
the applicant for recalling the order dated 11.06.2025
and to restore the C482 application to its original
number.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
applicant that the restoration application is within
time. He further submits that since the case, due to a
bonafide mistake, was not noted by the counsel for the
applicant, he could not appear before the Court on the
fixed date.
3. Learned State Counsel has not seriously
opposed the restoration application.
4. The reasons which have been assigned by
learned counsel for the applicant in affidavit, filed in
support of the restoration application, are sufficient
1
2025:UHC:6054
enough. Accordingly, restoration application is
allowed.
5. Order dated 11.06.2025 is hereby recalled.
The C482 application is restored to its original
number.
6. The present C482 application is directed
against the judgment and order dated 06.09.2023
passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in
Criminal Revision No.100 of 2023 and the applicant
may be permitted to file the certificate under Section
65-B of Evidence Act before the Investigating Office or
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.
7. Facts in a nutshell are that applicant filed
an Original Suit No.171 of 2020 before the court of
Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar for restraining respondent
no.3 from evicting the applicant from shop in-question
and the learned Civil Judge passed an order dated
27.11.2020 directing respondent no.3 not to evict the
applicant from the shop in-question. Despite the
aforesaid order, respondent no.3 and his son along
with 7-8 persons on 15.04.2021 at 07:30 p.m. came to
the shop of the applicant and forcibly broken the lock
of the shop and started beating the applicant and his
wife and did obscene acts with the wife of the
applicant. Again on 16.04.2021 at about 12:00 p.m.,
respondent no.3 along with his accomplices came to
the shop and at that time, applicant was not present
in the shop, they broke the lock of the shop and stole
all the goods and took it away. Thereafter, applicant
filed a complaint against respondent no.3 and others
and an FIR was lodged against them on 16.04.2021,
under Sections 147, 323, 504, 354, 454 & 380 IPC at
2
2025:UHC:6054
Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar.
8. After investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted by the police against the accused persons.
Thereafter, learned Magistrate took cognizance on the
charge-sheet and summoned the accused persons on
23.09.2022 in Criminal Case No.11238 of 2022, State
vs. Upendra Chaudhary & others. Thereafter, three
accused persons-respondent nos.2, 3 & 4, namely,
Smt. Amrita, Smt. Bindiya Goswami and Anmol
Agarwal had preferred a criminal revision before the
court of District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar. The
revisional court vide order dated 06.09.2023 partly
allowed the revision-petition and the order dated
23.09.2022 was quashed in respect of accused
persons-respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 and directed the trial
court to take cognizance after hearing the prosecution
as well as the investigating officer. Feeling aggrieved,
applicant is before this Court.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that from the CCTV footage, it is evident that
respondent nos.2 to 4 are present at the time of
occurrence. The CCTV camera was installed at the
shop of the applicant, which was taken by the accused
persons, but the recording of the same was with the
applicant in DVR (Digital Video Recorder). He further
submits that since the applicant had no knowledge
and the Investigating Officer did not inform him to
produce the certificate under Section 65-B of the
Evidence Act, the applicant should not suffer due to
the mistake of the Investigating Officer. He also
submits that the revisional court did not consider the
material aspect of the case and passed the order in a
3
2025:UHC:6054
very casual and cursory manner and without
application of mind, therefore, the order of revisional
court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the
same is liable to be quashed.
10. State has filed its objection. In the objection,
it is stated that the revisional court has formulated a
question in its judgment that the names of accused
Bindiya Goswami, Amrita and Anmol Agarwal have
been mentioned, but the case diary does not reflect
how their names has been inducted in the
investigation nor any specific role has been assigned
by the Investigating Officer. It also stated that the
order under challenge is purely based on the judicial
approach of the revisional court.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
carefully perused the entire material available on
record.
12. The revisional court in its order stated that
the trial court merely observed that it found prima
facie sufficient evidence after perusing the documents
available on record to take cognizance, which appeared
to be a routine/mechanical order. Further, the trial
court did not consider how the names of accused
Bindiya Goswami, Amrita and Anmol Agarwal emerged
in connection with the incident dated 15.04.2021, a
point that even the Investigating Officer failed to
clarify. Learned revisional court has delved with the
issue in great detail and in para 5 & 6 of the impugned
judgment and order contained reasoning for the
learned revisional court to reach to the finding that
there was no material to summon the respondent
nos.2, 3 & 4 and, therefore, rightly quashed the
4
2025:UHC:6054
summoning order in respect of respondent nos.2, 3 &
4, and directed the learned trial court to pass fresh
order on the basis of the observations made in the
judgment and order impugned and after hearing all
the parties. Reasons are quite convincing.
13. Accordingly, there is no perversity in the
order impugned which may warrant any interference
by this Court. Thus, the present C482 application
lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed
of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
14.07.2025
AK
5
[ad_1]
Source link