Uttarakhand High Court
22 April vs State Of Uttarakhand on 22 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:2884
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1985 of 2022
22 April, 2025
Abha Sinha --Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Prem Prakash, learned counsel (through V.C.) and
Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned counsel for applicant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.
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 07.03.2022 passed by learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar,
in Criminal Case No.2391 of 2014 State Vs. Satveer
Sehrawat and Ors., whereby, the application dated
04.03.2022 moved by the applicant-accused to
summon the defence witnesses has been rejected and
further the revisional order dated 15.09.2022 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision
No.88 of 2022 Abha Sinha Vs. State of Uttarakhand,
whereby, the judgment and order passed by the learned
Additional CJM was affirmed.
3. The applicant is facing a criminal trial in
Criminal Case No.2391 of 2014 State Vs. Satveer
Sehrawat and Ors., in the Court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
From perusal of the record, it transpires that much
after the conclusion of the prosecution evidence and
1
2025:UHC:2884
recording of statement of four witnesses, an
application purportedly under Section 243 of Cr.P.C.
has been moved by the applicant-accused on
04.03.2022, to summon the defence witnesses-
Champa Lal Agrawal (partner SARCK Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad), Registrar of Cooperative Society
Ahmedabad and Notary who allegedly notarized the
resignation letter of Abha Sinha-applicant, on the
ground that the evidences of these witnesses are
necessary for complete justice between the parties.
4. The said application dated 04.03.2022 was
opposed by the State saying that the said application
has been moved only to delay the trial and further
there are orders from the Hon’ble High Court of
Uttarakhand, Nainital and Hon’ble Apex Court to
decide the criminal case expeditiously.
5. Learned Additional CJM rejected aforesaid
application vide impugned judgment and order dated
07.03.2022. It has been specifically pointed out by the
learned ACJM that the criminal case is pending since
2014 on defence evidence and 04 defence witnesses
were already examined. It is further opined by the
learned ACJM that Registrar, Cooperative Society
Ahmedabad and Income Tax Officer Ahmedabad were
summoned for defence witnesses and the summons
were already served upon them. Further the
documents which the applicant-accused along with
other co-accused-Satveer Sehrawat and Harish
Sehrawat, want to bring on record were available in the
official website i.e. www.mca.gov.in of the Ministry,
which can be produced by the applicant-accused and
co-accused persons on their own. With these
2
2025:UHC:2884
reasoning, the application has been rejected. However,
the applicant-accused and other co-accused persons
were given 15 days time to produce remaining defence
evidences/documents on their asking.
6. Feeling disgruntled, applicant-Abha Sinha
filed a Criminal Revision No.88 of 2022 Abha Sinha Vs.
State of Uttarakhand, in the Court of learned Sessions
Judge, Haridwar, challenging the judgment and order
dated 07.03.2022 passed by the learned ACJM. The
said Revision met with the same fate and was
dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar
vide a detailed judgment and order dated 15.09.2022.
7. Learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar has
recorded its reasoning in Para 10 and 11 of the
judgment 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.
10. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
22.04.2025
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: 2025.04.22 17:05:33 +05’30’
3
[ad_1]
Source link