Uttarakhand High Court
Ravindra Singh Patwal And Another vs Anil Devlal on 12 June, 2025
2025:UHC:5135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.61 of 2018
Ravindra Singh Patwal and Another ......Applicant
Vs.
Anil Devlal .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt,learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Devang Dobhal, on behalf of Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for
the Respondent.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The Applicants, Ravindra Singh Patwal and Surender Singh
Rawat, are residents of District Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand. The
Respondent, Anil Devlal, is also a resident of the same district but
currently residing in New Delhi. The matter arises from a series of events
commencing around 2009-2010 involving a business relationship between
the Applicants and the Respondent's brother, Sunil Devlal.
2. The Applicants and Sunil Devlal had business transactions
concerning the supply of mobile phones and other goods. Financial
dealings took place between the Applicants and Sunil Devlal, including
transfers of funds through bank accounts. Cheques were also exchanged
during the course of these dealings.
3. An affidavit dated 26.03.2010 was executed by Sunil Devlal,
acknowledging receipt of money and containing a commitment to repay
the amount within a stipulated period. This affidavit was signed in the
presence of a witness.
1
Criminal Misc. Application No.61 of 2018-----Ravindra Singh Patwal and AnotherVs Anil Devlal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5135
4. On 03.11.2012, the Respondent filed a complaint before the
Police Station Dhumakot, alleging that his brother had repaid dues to the
Applicants. Still, theapplicant continued to make further demands, which
caused obstruction in his discharge of official duties. Subsequently, on
13.12.2012, the Respondent approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Dhumakot. Thereafter, on 14.03.2013, the Respondent filed an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Lansdowne.
5. The Judicial Magistrate called for a police report. Upon
submission of the report, which noted the matter as a civil dispute, the
Magistrate rejected the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on
09.04.2013.
6. The Respondent filed a criminal revision (Criminal Revision No.
70 of 2014) before the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand, challenging
the rejection of the 156(3) application. The High Court allowed the
revision on 15.01.2015 and directed registration of an FIR. In compliance,
an FIR (Case Crime No. 3 of 2015) was registered on 13.02.2015 at Police
Station Dhumakot under Section 506 IPC.
7. The Applicants filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 201 of 2015
before the Hon'ble High Court, which passed an interim order on
25.02.2015 directing that no coercive measures be taken against them. The
writ petition was later closed on 05.01.2017 after being informed that the
police had submitted a final report.
8. Meanwhile, on the same set of facts, the Respondent also filed a
criminal complaint before the trial court. Statements under Sections 200
and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded, and based on these, the Judicial
Magistrate, Lansdowne, issued summoning orders against the Applicants
on 11.08.2017 for the offence under Section 506 IPC.
9. The Applicants thereafter filed the present Criminal
Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Hon'ble
2
Criminal Misc. Application No.61 of 2018-----Ravindra Singh Patwal and AnotherVs Anil Devlal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5135
High Court of Uttarakhand, challenging the summoning order and seeking
quashing of the criminal proceedings.
10. Heard learned counsel Mr. Sanjay Bhatt on behalf of the
Petitioner, and Mr. Devang Dobhal on behalf of Lokendra Dobhal on
behalf of the Respondent and perused the records.
11. Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the impugned
criminal proceedings are an abuse of the process of law. It is argued that
the core dispute between the parties pertains to a financial transaction and
business relationship involving the Respondent's brother, Sunil Devlal,
and that such matters fall squarely within the realm of civil law. The
Applicants assert that the filing of criminal complaints, including one
before the Delhi Court, the FIR in Uttarakhand, and the present case, are
tactics intended to pressurize them.
12. It is further argued that there is no material on record to
substantiate the offence under Section 506 IPC. No direct or specific threat
is alleged in the FIR or the complaint that would meet the legal
requirements for criminal intimidation. The Applicants contend that the
police, after investigation, filed a closure report, indicating that no offence
was made out. The subsequent complaint and summoning order based on
the same facts thus lack merit and constitute double jeopardy.
13. The learned counsel for the Applicants emphasises the inordinate
delay in the initiation of criminal proceedings, alleging incidents from
2012 led to FIR registration only in 2015, and the present complaint
proceedings continued even after the police had concluded their
investigation.
14. The issue of jurisdictional inconvenience was also raised on
behalf of the Applicants, stating that they reside in a remote village more
than 100 km away from Lansdowne, making compliance with court
proceedings unduly burdensome in a matter likely to end in acquittal.
3
Criminal Misc. Application No.61 of 2018-----Ravindra Singh Patwal and AnotherVs Anil Devlal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5135
Finally, it is urged that no criminal intent or mens rea is evident, and the
complaint, even if taken at face value, lacks the ingredients necessary to
constitute a cognisable offence.
15. The learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the criminal
proceedings are based on a legitimate grievance arising out of continuous
threats and harassment faced by the Respondent from the Applicants. It is
argued that the Applicants wrongfully withheld blank stamped papers and
cheques from the Respondent's brother and, despite the settlement of dues,
continued to demand further payments, thereby issuing threats to the
Respondent's life and liberty.
16. The Respondent's counsel places reliance on the order of the
Hon'ble High Court dated 15.01.2015, which, in Criminal Revision No.
70 of 2014, directed registration of an FIR. It is contended that the court's
direction was based on a finding that the complaint disclosed a cognisable
offence. Further, it is submitted that after the closure report, the
Respondent exercised his statutory right by pursuing a private complaint
independent of the police investigation.
17. The learned counsel for the Respondent also emphasises that
statements were duly recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and
the learned Magistrate applied a judicial mind before issuing the
summoning order. The Respondent had to relocate from Pauri Garhwal to
Delhi due to the threats received, and official documents remain at his
former place of posting. It is further argued that the High Court, while
hearing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., ought not to interfere at the
preliminary stage where there exists prima facie material warranting trial,
and that the Applicants have adequate remedies under the Cr.P.C. to seek
discharge or contest the allegations at trial.
18. Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny
of the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the dispute between
4
Criminal Misc. Application No.61 of 2018-----Ravindra Singh Patwal and AnotherVs Anil Devlal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5135
the parties originates from a business transaction primarily involving the
Applicants and the Respondent's brother, Mr. Sunil Devlal. The factual
matrix, as discernible from the documents annexed to the application and
the counter affidavit, reveals a series of monetary transactions, issuance of
cheques, and an acknowledgement of debt through an affidavit dated
26.03.2010 executed by Sunil Devlal.
19. It appears that the said affidavit included a promise to repay the
outstanding amount, which was not honoured, thereby prompting the
Applicants to consider legal remedies.
20. The Court further observes that the initial effort to invoke
criminal proceedings was made by the Respondent through an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Lansdowne, on 09.04.2013. The dismissal was on the ground
that the complaint lacked specificity regarding the date, time, and mode of
the alleged threats.
21. The Magistrate also noted that the Respondent himself was not a
party to the underlying financial transactions and that the allegations
seemed to be an attempt to create pressure in a civil dispute between his
brother and the Applicants.
22. Subsequently, the Hon'ble High Court, in Criminal Revision No.
70 of 2014, interfered with the Magistrate's order and directed the police
to register an FIR. The basis for this direction was a broader interpretation
of Section 154 Cr.P.C. as clarified in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of
U.P., where it was held that the police are duty-bound to register an FIR if
a cognisable offence is disclosed.
23. However, the Court notes that registration of an FIR under
judicial direction does not ipso facto validate the allegations or substitute
the requirement of a prima facie case to be made out.
5
Criminal Misc. Application No.61 of 2018-----Ravindra Singh Patwal and AnotherVs Anil Devlal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5135
24. It is evident from the records that after investigation, the police
submitted a closure report, having found no material substantiating the
offence alleged under Section 506 IPC.
25. The Respondent, however, exercised his right under the law to
file a private complaint. This led to the issuance of the summoning order
dated 11.08.2017 by the learned Magistrate based on statements recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
26. The Court is of the considered view that while the complainant
has the right to pursue remedies under law, the mere invocation of
criminal law does not automatically justify subjecting a party to criminal
trial, particularly where the foundational dispute is of a civil-commercial
nature. A crucial aspect of the offence under Section 506 IPC, i.e.,
intention to cause alarm and specific threat to person or property,is
conspicuously absent or insufficiently pleaded in the complaint. The
record discloses no direct acts of intimidation or mens rea that can
withstand judicial scrutiny under the threshold of criminal law. At most,
the allegations reflect financial recovery efforts arising out of an admitted
commercial relationship.
27. Moreover, the chronology of eventsbeginning from the affidavit
of 2010, applications in 2012-2013, court proceedings till 2017, and
multiplicity of litigationsindicates a protracted civil conflict in which
criminal law has been selectively invoked at intervals, possibly to exert
pressure. The pendency of similar proceedings in Delhi courts further
compounds the issue of forum abuse.
28. It is well-settled that criminal prosecution should not be used as
an instrument of coercion in matters primarily civil in nature. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 has
repeatedly held that in cases where civil and criminal proceedings arise
from the same facts, the criminal proceedings may be quashed if the
6
Criminal Misc. Application No.61 of 2018-----Ravindra Singh Patwal and AnotherVs Anil Devlal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5135
allegations do not prima facie disclose the commission of any cognisable
offence.
29. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that
continuation of the criminal proceedings under Section 506 IPC against
the Applicants, based on the facts presently before the Court, would
amount to misuse of judicial process and unwarranted harassment of the
Applicants.
ORDER
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and for the
reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court finds merit in
the present application.
Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 61 of 2018
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 147 of 2016, titled Anil
Devlal vs. Ravindra Singh Patwal and others, pending before the Court
of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal,
arising out of Case Crime No. 3 of 2015, Police Station Dhumakot,
under Section 506 IPC, and the summoning order dated 11.08.2017, are
hereby quashed.
No order as to costs.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
12.06.2025
SB
7
Criminal Misc. Application No.61 of 2018—–Ravindra Singh Patwal and AnotherVs Anil Devlal
Ashish Naithani J.