Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Neetu Singh @ Neetu Kainth vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 25 January, 2021
(Reserved judgment)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.404 of 2019
Smt. Neetu Singh @ Neetu Kainth
........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ........Respondents
Present: Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Lalit
Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Shubhash Tyagi Bhardwaj, Dy. A.G. with Mr. V.S. Rathour,
Brief Holder, for the State/respondent no.1.
Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram
Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. .
Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J.
The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application has
been filed by the applicant - Smt. Neetu Singh @ Neetu
Kainth against the judgment and order dated
04.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional District
Judge - I, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No.242 of 2018
"Smt. Surinder Kaur & another Vs. State of Uttarakhand
& others", by which the revision of the private
respondents was allowed and the order passed by the
trial court dated 04.08.2018 was set aside.
2. The facts leading to the present case are that
initially the First Information Report was lodged by the
applicant being FIR No.0149, under Sections 498-A and
323 of IPC, at Police Station, Rajpur, District Dehradun.
It has come on record that in the connected matters the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun vide orders
dated 09.05.2018, 06.09.2018 and 11.09.2018 had
directed the applicant to bring her son Master Parneet
Singh Sagar, so that parties be permitted to meet Master
Parneet Singh Sagar, but these orders have not been
complied with by the applicant - Smt. Neetu Singh @
Neetu Kainth.
3. It has also been averred that the learned
Judicial Magistrate - I, Dehradun vide its order dated
03.10.2017 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.1141 of
2017, has restrained the respondent nos.2 and 3 from
interfering in the custody of the minor child, namely,
Parneet Singh Sagar. The applicant has also moved an
application under Section 156(3) of CrPC before the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun against
private respondents and prayed that the Police Station
Dalanwala be directed to lodge an FIR and the
investigation be done. The statement of the
complainant/applicant was recorded under Section 200
of CrPC. The complainant has also moved an application
under Section 202 of CrPC, in which she has stated that
the accused persons are trying to mislead the Court and
by violating the orders passed by the court concerned
have tried to kidnap her son, namely, Parneet Singh
Sagar, which can be verified from the CCTV footage of
the school and the statements of Administrative Officer
of the School are necessary to be recorded and bring the
truth on record. Applicant further stated that the
application under Section 202 of CrPC be allowed and
the directions be issued to the Police Station Dalanwala,
Dehradun in this regard.
5. The learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, 1st, Dehradun vide order dated 08.04.2018
recorded the finding in its order that the
complainant/applicant has supported the averments of
the complaint in her statement recorded under Section
202 of CrPC. Consequently, the learned Magistrate vide
order dated 08.04.2018 has directed the Station House
Officer, Dalanwala, Dehradun to produce the CCTV
footage of the incident and its expenses shall be borne
by the applicant/complainant and the matter was fixed
for 28.04.2018. Subsequently, the Police Station
Dalanwala filed a report dated 15.05.2018, stating
therein that as per the School authorities, the CCTV
Footage is not available. Thereafter, the learned
Magistrate has examined Shri Sohan Singh on
18.07.2018, in which Shri Sohan Singh has supported
the version of complainant/ applicant. The learned
Magistrate found ample evidence to form his opinion and
consequently the learned Magistrate vide its order dated
04.08.2018, was pleased to summon the respondent
no.3 and Babnish Tyagi under Section 204 of CrPC.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the summoning order
dated 04.08.2018, the respondents preferred a revision
being 242 of 2018 "Smt. Surinder Kaur & another Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & others" before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Dehradun. Thereafter, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge vide its order dated
04.02.2019 allowed the criminal revision by setting aside
the order dated 04.08.2018 passed by the trial court and
remanded the matter to the Magistrate to decide the
complaint afresh, in view of the observations made by
the revisional Court.
7. The revisional Court has considered the
contradictions made in the complaint and in the
statement made by the complainant/applicant that on
the one hand she states that on 06.02.2018 when she
along with her father reached the School to take her son,
her mother-in-law tried to kidnap her son but due to hue
and cry of her son, the people were gathered there,
having seen the crowd Smt. Surinder Kaur and Babnish
Tyagi ran away from the spot in Silver I20 Car. On the
other hand, the complainant/accused has examined her
witnesses under Section 202 CrPC, who states that on
06.02.2018, he along with his daughter at 1:40 PM
reached the school to take the son and when he was
sitting outside the school in a car, he saw crowd was
gathered and when he went there, he saw that Surender
Kaur has caught his daughter from the neck and saying
that she will kill her and Surendra Kaur was trying to
take his grandson and when the child cried, they flee
away from the spot from Silver - I20 car.
8. It is apt to note that learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Dehradun has directed the applicant herein
to produce the minor son in the court. It seems that the
applicant has suppressed these findings when she filed
the complaint before the Magistrate concerned.
9. The learned Revisional Court having considered the
statements of the complainant/applicant Smt. Neetu
Kainth and her father Sohan Singh, which appears to be
a contradictory and having considered the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s
Pepsi Food Ltd and others Vs. Special Judicial
Magistrate and others reported in (1997) INSC 809,
vide order dated 04.02.2019 has allowed the revision,
set aside the order dated 04.08.2018 and remanded the
matter to the trial court.
10. In view of this Court, the order of remand is
an interlocutory order in nature. This Court does not find
any illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error and abuse of
process of law in the order dated 04.02.2019 passed by
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun.
11. There is no occasion to interfere in the order
dated 04.02.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Dehradun.
12. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous
application filed under Section 482 of CrPC stands
dismissed.
(Lok Pal Singh, J.)
25.01.2021
Nitesh/
