Uttarakhand High Court
C528/273/2026 on 24 February, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528 No.273 of 2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Arvind Vashishta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak and Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocates for the applicant.
2. The applicant has assailed the order dated 07.02.2026 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 38 of 2023, whereby the application preferred by respondent under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was allowed and a direction was issued to the Sessions Clerk to lodge a complaint before the competent Magistrate against the applicant. The said direction has been founded on the observation that, in the memorandum of appeal filed in Misc. Appeal No. 29 of 2023, the applicant had mentioned an incorrect date regarding the permanent lease of the respondent.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant submits that upon receipt of notice of the said application, the applicant duly filed his objections/reply, specifically clarifying that the incorrect mention of the year of the lease deed was purely a typographical error. It was explained that instead of the year 1907, the year 2007 was inadvertently typed. It is further contended that even the respondent had referred to an incorrect date of the lease deed in certain documents. However, without properly adverting to and considering the explanation furnished by the applicant, the learned court below proceeded to pass the impugned order.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is prima facie of the view that learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge has himself recorded a finding that the error in mentioning the date of the lease deed was intentional, but there is no finding regarding expediency. The aspect of expediency, which is a sine qua non for initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C., does not appear to have been adequately examined before directing lodging of the complaint against the applicant.
5. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable at an early date.
6. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 07.02.2026, shall remain stayed.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 24.02.2026 Arpan