Uttarakhand High Court
6 April vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 16 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:2769
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 471 of 2025
16 April, 2025
Rajrani
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & another
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. D.N. Sharma, Ms. Manju Bahuguna with Mr. J.P. Pandey
(appeared through V.C.), learned counsel for the petitioner, are
present.
Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State is
present.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By means of present application moved under
Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, applicant has sought to
quash the judgment and order dated 01.03.2025 passed
by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, U.S. Nagar
in Criminal Revision No.171 of 2024, Smt. Rajrani v.
State, and order dated 19.07.2024 passed by learned
First Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District U.S. Nagar
in Misc. Application No.415 of 2024 ‘Smt. Rajrani v. State
and another‘ and to allow the application moved by the
applicant u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.
3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the
applicant that the applicant, who is a 60% physically
challenged woman, moved applications to the police
authorities regarding registration of FIR for commission
of cognizable offence against respondent no.2. When the
1
2025:UHC:2769
said FIR was not considered and registered by police
against respondent no.2, applicant, having left with no
other option, moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. in
the Court of learned First Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar which was registered as
Misc. Application No.415 of 2024 (Rajrani v. State and
others). The learned Magistrate considered the averments
made in the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the
applicant and by impugned order dated 19.07.2024,
treated the application moved by applicant-Smt. Rajrani
u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to be registered as a complaint case.
4. Applicant, feeling disgruntled by order dated
19.07.2024 passed by learned First Judicial Magistrate,
Rudrapur, U.S. Nagar, challenged the same by filing
Criminal Revision No.171 of 2024 (Rajrani v. State and
another). The said revision met with the same fate of
dismissal by judgment and order dated 01.03.2025
passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Udham Singh Nagar.
5. It is feeling aggrieved by both the judgment
and orders dated 19.07.2024 and 01.03.2025 passed by
the learned Magistrate and learned Revisional Court
respectively, applicant is before this Court in present
Misc. Application moved u/s 528 of the BNSS, 2023.
6. It is argued by Mr. D.N. Sharma, learned
Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a 60%
physically challenged woman, and therefore, the orders
passed by both the Courts suffer from illegality and
perversity, since the applicant is not in a position to
contest the complaint before the Court of Magistrate. It
is further argued that the case of the applicant is based
upon the medical reports of applicant and her son who
2
2025:UHC:2769
were belaboured by respondent no.2. It is further argued
that both the Courts i.e. Magistrate as well as Revisional
Courts, ignoring these aspects of matter, have passed the
impugned orders.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel took me to
the reasoning assigned by the Courts below contained in
the judgments and orders impugned herein, and
submitted that the course open to the Magistrate to
convert an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. into a
complaint under Section 210 of BNSS, 2023 is within the
parameters of law, and there is nothing wrong in
exercising powers by the Magistrate. He further submits
that both the judgments and orders challenged before
this Court are legally sound and perfect and, therefore,
do not warrant any interference by this Court.
8. I have perused the order dated 19.07.2024
passed by learned Magistrate as well as the revisional
judgment and order dated 01.03.2025. The reasoning
has been assigned by the Revisional Court in paragraph
nos.10 and 11 of the impugned revisional judgment
wherein it is stated that the applicant could not show any
reason as to why the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. be
not directed to be registered as a complaint case before
the Magistrate.
9. Insofar as the argument advanced by learned
Counsel for the revisionist is concerned, this Court does
not find any reason to accept those arguments. It is
under the wisdom of learned Magistrate to treat the
application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case and
evidence can very well be produced/ adduced in a
complaint case by the applicant/complainant before the
Trial Court.
3
2025:UHC:2769
10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm
opinion that the impugned judgments and orders do not
warrant any interference by this Court.
11. Accordingly, present C528 application is
hereby dismissed. Judgment and order dated 01.03.2025
passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge,
U.S. Nagar in Criminal Revision No.171 of 2024, Smt.
Rajrani v. State, and order dated 19.07.2024 passed by
learned First Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District U.S.
Nagar in Misc. Application No.415 of 2024 ‘Smt. Rajrani
v. State and another‘ are hereby affirmed.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
16.04.2025
AK
4