Uttarakhand High Court
C482/1984/2023 on 17 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1052
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C482/1984/2023
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. H.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Ankit Bisht proxy counsel for Mr. Sharang Dhulia, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
4. Present C-482 applicant has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 06.07.2023 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Revision No. 8 of 2023, whereby the revision preferred by the applicant was dismissed and the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in Criminal Complaint Case No. 3728 of 2022 was affirmed. By the said order dated 16.02.2023, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while partly allowing the protest petition, summoned respondent no.2 for offences punishable under Sections 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C., but declined to summon him for offences under Sections 354-B, 354-D, 323 I.P.C. and the relevant provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that respondent no.2, who is a practicing advocate at Haldwani, had been continuously harassing the applicant and her minor daughter since 2026:UHC:1052 the year 2017. It is alleged that on 22.09.2020, respondent no.2 stopped the applicant and her husband and used vulgar and abusive language and extended threats. It is further submitted that although the FIR dated 04.11.2020 contained specific allegations of misbehaviour and obscene acts against the minor daughter, the police registered the case only under Sections 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and did not invoke the provisions of the POCSO Act. The Investigating Officer thereafter submitted a final report on 31.12.2020. Against the said final report, the applicant filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate, after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoned respondent no.2 only for offences under Sections 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C.; that, the revision preferred by the applicant was dismissed by the revisional court. Hence, the present petition.
6. It is further argued on behalf of the applicant that the investigation was not fair and impartial inasmuch as respondent no.2 is allegedly influential and his brother is serving as Nazir in the court at Haldwani. It is contended that the Investigating Officer ignored the statement of the minor recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as her statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., wherein specific allegations of vulgar comments and harassment were made. It is thus prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and directions be issued to summon respondent no.2 for the additional offences.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel 2026:UHC:1052 has opposed the application and submitted that there exists longstanding enmity between the parties. It is contended that respondent no.2 had also lodged an FIR against the applicant and her husband and that the present proceedings are a counterblast. It is further submitted that the houses of the parties are situated opposite each other and disputes had arisen during construction activities and regarding alleged burning of pharmaceutical waste. It is argued that the learned Magistrate, after considering the material on record including statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., found no sufficient ground to summon respondent no.2 for the additional offences and that the revisional court rightly affirmed the said finding.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while dealing with the protest petition, exercised jurisdiction as a complaint case and recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, upon appreciation of the material so collected, arrived at a prima facie satisfaction that offences under Sections 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C. were made out and accordingly summoned respondent no.2 for the said offences. The revisional court, held that the Magistrate had applied his judicial mind to the material on record and that no perversity, illegality or material irregularity was demonstrated warranting interference in revision.
9. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is 2026:UHC:1052 to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where there is manifest illegality or abuse of process of court. The power cannot be invoked to re-appreciate evidence or to substitute the satisfaction of this Court for that of the Magistrate at the stage of summoning, unless the impugned order suffers from patent illegality or non-application of mind.
10. In the present case, this Court does not find any such illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the courts below. The learned Magistrate has considered the entire material placed before him and has passed a reasoned order. The revisional court has also examined the matter in accordance with law and has affirmed the order with cogent reasons. The allegations of biased investigation and influence are matters of evidence and cannot, by themselves, justify interference in inherent jurisdiction in the absence of demonstrable legal infirmity in the impugned orders.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out.
12. Accordingly, the C-482 application is dismissed.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 17.02.2026 Mamta