Kiran Bhatiya vs Rajeev Jain
2024 Latest Caselaw 524 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Kiran Bhatiya vs Rajeev Jain on 2 April, 2024

Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma

Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

        Criminal Misc. Application No.838 of 2016


Kiran Bhatiya                                               ....Petitioner

                                   Versus

Rajeev Jain                                            .... Respondent

Mr. Dheeraj Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
None present for the respondent



                                                       Dated: 02.04.2024


Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

By means of present petition u/s 482 of

Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks to set aside the judgment/order

dated 30.09.2014 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions

Judge, Haridwar and the judgment/order dated

30.01.2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar,

whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner against the

respondent for the offence punishable under Section 379,

406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 of IPC has been

dismissed.

2. Heard on admission.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/

complainant would submit that the

petitioner/complainant filed a complaint against the

respondent u/s 379, 406, 420, 467, 468, 473, 323, 504,

506 of IPC; that, the Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, vide

judgment/order dated 30.01.2014, dismissed the

complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. against which a

revision was preferred, which was also dismissed vide

judgment/order dated 30.09.2014, hence, present

petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/

complainant would submit that the courts below have

committed manifest error in dismissing the complaint of

the petitioner/complainant. He would further submit

that if the content of the complaint shows commission of

cognizable offence then it is the bounden duty of the

Magistrate to take cognizance against the accused u/s

204 of Cr.P.C.

5. Heard submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner and perused the material available on record.

6. On perusal of impugned judgments/orders, it

would reveal that the Trial Court has observed that there

is a civil litigation pending between the parties regarding

agreement to sale and accordingly dismissed the

complaint in absence of any sufficient ground for

proceedings against the respondent. The Revisional Court

find favour with the order of the Trial Court and affirm

the same in revision.

7. Having considered the submission of learned

counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record,

this Court does not find any illegality or patent error in

the judgments impugned so as to exercise its inherent

jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The powers under Section

482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and

with caution and only to prevent abuse of process of any

Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. In the

considered view of this Court, this is not the fit case

where the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised.

8. Besides above, this Court finds that the

impugned judgment was passed by the Revisional Court

on 30.09.2014 and this petition was filed before this

Court on 20.07.2016 i.e. after a delay of about one year

and ten months, thus, on this count also, present

petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. For the reasons recorded above, present

petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed in

limine.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 02.04.2024 Rajni