Uttarakhand High Court
Pradeep Batra And Others --Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 6 November, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2024:UHC:8169
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 206 of 2024
Pradeep Batra and Others --Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
With
Criminal Misc Application No. 207 of 2024
Siddharth Batra and Others --Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State
of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Sohil Sharma and Mr. R.K. Rawat, learned counsel
for respondent No.3.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Delay in filing the counter affidavit is
condoned. Delay condonation application (IA/3/2024)
made therefor, is allowed. Counter affidavit is taken on
record.
3. By means of these C528 applications,
applicants have challenged the orders dated 05.08.2024
passed by the learned First Additional District Judge,
Haridwar, whereby, the Criminal Revisions filed by the
applicants against the order dated 05.09.2023 have been
dismissed on the ground of its not being maintainable.
4. Since both the C528 applications entail
common questions of fact and law and are very limited
one, hence, these are being taken up together and
decided by this common order. However, the facts of
C528 No.206 of 2024 are alone being taken up for
consideration.
2024:UHC:8169
5. The facts of the case shorn-off unnecessary
details are that the respondent No.3 has filed an
application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. in the
Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee,
District Haridwar on 22.08.2023. The said application
was allowed by the learned Additional chief Judicial
Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar vide order dated
05.09.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated
05.09.2023, applicants filed a Criminal Revision No.126
of 2023 Siddharth Batra and Anr. Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and Anr. in the Court of learned First
Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
By the impugned order dated 05.08.2024, the said
Criminal Revision was rejected by the learned First
Additional District Judge, Haridwar, saying it not
maintainable.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants placed
reliance upon a judgment passed by this Court in the
case of Sanjay Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of
Uttaranchal & Ors. reported in 2006 Supreme (UK)
346, wherein, it has been opined by the Court in Para 17
that against the order passed under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.P.C., a Criminal Revision is the remedy available to a
person. Para 17 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted
hereasunder:-
"Para 17. The chapter XII under which chapter 156 Cr.P.C.
has been indicated deals with regard to the investigation of
the matter. The power to direct the investigation has been
conferred upon the police as well as to the Magistrate. It is
revealed from this chapter that the Magistrate is also an
authority under the Act to direct the investigation where the
prima-facie offence is disclosed in the complaint. The
complaint disclosing cognizable offence may well justify the
Magistrate in sending the complain u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the
police for the investigation. It is pertinent to mention here
that the power to order to police for investigation u/s 156(3)
is different from the power to direct investigation conferred
by the Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. Both the powers of the
Magistrate operate in distinct spheres at different stages.
2024:UHC:8169
The first power is exercisable at the pre-cognizance stage
and the second at the post-cognizance stage when the
Magistrate is in seisin of the case. An order made under
Sub-section (3) of Section 156 is in the nature of a
preemptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise
their plenary powers of investigation under Section 156(1).
Such an investigation embraces the entire continuous
process which begins with the collection of the evidence u/s
156 and ends with the report of the charge u/s 173. It is
also pertinent to mention here that if order to register and
investigate has been passed u/s 156(3) that order is
revisable provided that in pursuant to the order no F.I.R. has
been recorded."
7. Learned State Counsel as well as the learned
counsel for the respondent No.3 has admitted this legal
position. It is also admitted to the parties that pursuant
to the order dated 05.09.2023 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District
Haridwar, no FIR has been registered.
6. Accordingly, both the C528 applications are
allowed. The orders dated 05.08.2024 passed by the
learned First Additional District Judge, Haridwar in
Criminal Revision No.126 of 2023 Siddharth Batra and
Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. and Criminal
Revision No.160 of 2023 Pradeep Batra and Others Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Anr., are hereby quashed. It is
held that Criminal Revisions are maintainable. The
matter is remanded back to the learned District Sessions
Judge, Haridwar to decide both the revisions on merit in
accordance with law.
7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
06.11.2024
PN
PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0
NEGI
276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D8
4BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2024.11.11 10:22:04 +05'30'
