Uttarakhand High Court
Vivek Swaroop vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 21 February, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.210 of 2024
(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)
Vivek Swaroop ........Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ........Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. Sharang Dhulia, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for respondent
nos.2 & 3.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This C482 application is moved by the
applicant, who is the complainant/informant in a
criminal case, the trial of which is pending in the court of
Judicial Magistrate-1st, Haldwani, District Nainital in
Criminal Case No.2607 of 2014, State vs. Jyoti Singh &
others under Sections 420, 504, 506 & 389 of IPC,
against the order dated 18.01.2024, passed by Judicial
Magistrate-1st, Haldwani, District Nainital, whereby the
application dated 17.01.2024 moved by the applicant
under Section 311 IPC has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
applicant that on the first information report of the
applicant, the accused-persons are being tried in the trial
for the offences mentioned hereinabove. During the
course of trial, applications have been moved from the
side of the respondents-accused persons, whereby an
adjournment was sought by the respondents-accused
persons on the ground that there was possibility of
compromise between the parties. These applications are
part of the record as annexure-1 collectively.
4. It is further contended by learned counsel for
the applicant that subsequently, no compromise was
entered into between the parties and now, the applicant-
informant by moving an application under Section 311
IPC wants to examine the respondents-accused persons
with regard to the applications moved by them, during
the course of trial, in which the chances of compromise
were mentioned by them. The said application did not
find favour and the Judicial Magistrate by reasoned
order dated 18.01.2024 rejected the said application.
Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by Judicial
Magistrate dated 18.01.2024, the applicant-informant
moved a Criminal Revision No.11 of 2024, Vivek Swaroop
vs. State of Uttarakhand & others, but the said revision-
petition met with the same fate and the revision was
rejected on 05.02.2024, wherein it has been held that the
order impugned in the revision-petition is interlocutory
order against which no revision lies and thus needs no
interference. Now, the applicant is before this Court
challenging both the orders.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having gone through the impugned
judgments and orders passed by trial court as well as the
revisional court. I do not find any illegality and infirmity
in the judgments and orders impugned, therefore, these
orders need not to be interfered with. In the opinion of
this Court, respondents-accused persons cannot be
forced to give evidence against their own interest under
the law.
6. In this view of the matter, there is no force in
the C482 application and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
21.02.2024
AK
