Uttarakhand High Court
7 April vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 7 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:2608
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1011 of 2022
07 April, 2025
Vijaypal Singh --Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Mahavir Kohli, learned counsel for applicant.
Mr. K.S. Bohra, learned D.A.G. with Mr. J.P. Kandpal,
learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/
respondent Nos.1 to 3.
None present for private respondents.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the present C482 application,
applicant has challenged the order dated 02.07.2021
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Second in
application No.14 of 2021 Vijaypal Singh Vs. Guddi and
Others, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., as well as the
order dated 22.03.2022 passed by Fourth Additional
Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District Haridwar in Revision
No.189 of 2021 Vijaypal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand
and Others, whereby, the said revision was dismissed.
2. The facts in the nutshell are that the applicant
was peacefully operating a garments shop under the
tenancy of respondent No.4; the applicant with his family
was out of station to participate in a family function and
when returned on 07.02.2021, they came to know that
the respondent No.4 and her family members had
encroached the shop of applicant into their house by
constructing a cemented wall in place of the opening of
the shop and all the garment material in the said shop
was missing. When applicant talked to the respondent
1
2025:UHC:2608
No.4 and her family members regarding the aforesaid
incident, they did not talk to the applicant and started
giving threats of dire consequences to the applicant and
his family. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 and her
family members lodged a false and frivolous FIR against
the whole family of applicant. Police lodged FIR against
Nitin Chauhan-son, Rajbala Chauhan-wife and Meenu
Chauhan-daughter, under Sections 232, 452, 504 and
506 IPC, but straight forwardedly refused to lodge FIR
against the private respondents in a very cursory
manner, while the applicant informed the police earlier
regarding the whole incident. Then, the applicant
forwarded an application to Station House Officer, Senior
Superintendent of Police, Haridwar, Human Rights
Commission and D.G.P. Dehradun by the registered post,
but, no action was taken against the respondents. After
inaction on the part of respondent authorities, the
applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) of
the Cr.P.C. before the concerned learned Judicial
Magistrate Second, but the same was rejected by the
learned Judicial Magistrate on 02.07.2021 on the ground
that the matter is purely of civil nature. It was also
observed that some civil litigation are pending between
the parties in Court. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a
revision bearing Revision No.189 of 2021 Vijaypal Singh
Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, against the
aforesaid order dated 02.07.2021 before the learned
Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, but, it too
was dismissed vide judgment and order dated
22.03.2022 having relied upon the grounds of dismissal
of the learned Judicial Magistrate Second. Thus, the
applicant is before this Court by challenging the
aforesaid impugned orders.
2
2025:UHC:2608
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the police authority had not investigated the whole
matter and without any proper investigation and without
any evidence on record, they have not registered the FIR
of the applicant against the private respondents. The
police authorities are completely silent and supporting
the private respondents despite the fact that the
cognizable offence has been committed and as per the
dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita
Kumar Vs. Government of U.P. reported in (2014) 2
SCC 1; (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524, the police authorities
are bound to register the FIR against the private
respondents for such forgery which has been committed
against the petitioner. He also placed reliance upon a
judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
in Criminal Writ Petition No.1099 of 2020 Ashish
Bhargava Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, in which
it was observed that “Right to get speedy justice is a
fundamental right of every citizen as guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The purpose of
lodging the First Information Report in a cognizable
offence is to investigate the matter as the First Information
Report has not been lodged in the matter, no question
arises of any investigation. Non registration of the FIR
rendered the petitioner remediless which is violation of
fundamental right of a citizen as guaranteed under Article
21 of the Constitution of India. Reference can be made to
the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary
State of Bihar, Patna. FIR is the basis of launching a
just and proper investigation in the matter. Since the FIR
has not been registered, one cannot presume that there
will be proper dispensation of justice to the aggrieved
3
2025:UHC:2608
person. Violation of fundamental right of a citizen gives an
authority to this Court to pass appropriate orders to
secure the ends of justice. Since the authorities failed to
discharge their mandatory obligation of registering the
First Information Report and the learned Magistrate also
did not entertain the application filed by the petitioner
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner cannot be
left remediless. Non registration of the FIR in a cognizable
offence amounts to dereliction of duty on the part of the
Officer In-charge of concerned Police Station. Non
registration of the FIR, promptly, is fatal and delay in
registering the FIR would cause injustice to the petitioner.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State, it would be apt to note here
that the private respondents are not necessary to be
heard at this stage.”
4. In para-9 of the affidavit filed in support of the
present C482 application, it is specifically pleaded by the
applicant that no civil case is pending between the
parties in any Court. It is argued that the finding of both
the Courts are thus perverse and thus cannot sustain.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits
that the appellate court and the Revisional court have
rightly passed the impugned orders on the ground that
the dispute is civil in nature.
6. Learned counsel for private respondents has
filed its counter affidavit. In counter affidavit, it is stated
that the applicant has leveled false allegations against
them and the applicant is trying to rope them in a false
case. But one thing is explicitly clear from the counter
affidavit filed by private respondent that no civil suit is
pending between the parties.
4
2025:UHC:2608
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and having gone through the entire material available on
record, it is clear beyond doubt that both the learned
Courts recorded an absolute wrong finding that civil
cases are pending between the parties. This is something
perverse and illegal, which warrant interference by this
Court for end of justice.
8. Accordingly, the present C482 application is
allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated
02.07.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate
Second in application No.14 of 2021 Vijaypal Singh Vs.
Guddi and Others, file under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. as
well as the impugned order dated 22.03.2022 passed by
Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District
Haridwar in Revision No.189 of 2021 Vijaypal Singh Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others, are hereby quashed.
The facts narrated in the complaint dated 08.02.2021 of
the applicant prima-facie make out commission of a
cognizable offence against the private respondents.
9. The upshot of the aforesaid discussions leads
to this Court to direct the learned Magistrate to decide
the application No.14 of 2021 Vijaypal Singh Vs. Guddi
and Others, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the
applicant, afresh in the light of the observations made in
this judgment.
10. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of
this judgment to the Court below for doing the needful.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.04.2025
PN
PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6
aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
NEGI
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229
D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.04.09 16:00:45 +05’30’
5
[ad_1]
Source link