Uttarakhand High Court
Rehana Praveen vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 4 October, 2024
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
2024:UHC:7628
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1225 of 2015
Rehana Praveen ....Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents
Mr. M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Pratul Kumar, proxy counsel for Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned
counsel for respondent nos.2 to 11.
Dated : 04.10.2024
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
This is the petition filed by the
petitioner/accused u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. (as the
procedural law was then) to quash the order dated
29.01.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dehradun (Annexure No-7 to this application/petition);
to quash the judgment and order dated 30.05.2015
passed by the 4th Additional Session Judge Dehradun
(Annexure No.8 to this petition); to direct the C.J.M.
Dehradun to decide afresh the application dated
08.01.2014 of the petitioner/applicant moved U/s
156(3) Cr.P.C. (Annexure No.6 to this petition).
2. Learned counsel for the
petitioner/complainant would submit that the
petitioner/complainant moved an application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dehradun alleging therein that respondent
nos. 2 to 11 want to dispossess the
petitioner/complainant and her family from the
property situated at Village Resham Majri, Laltappar,
2024:UHC:7628
Teshil Rishikesh,District Dehradun and for that purpose,
they have looted the households of the
petitioner/complainant on 06.11.2013 & set on fire the
scrap amounting to Rs.17,00,000/-, which were lying in
the land of the petitioner/complainant.
3. Counsel for the petitioner/complainant would
further submit that the orders dated 29.01.2014 as well
as order dated 30.05.2015 are unsustainable in the
eyes of law as both the courts below without
considering the facts of the matter dismissed the
application filed by the petitioner/complainant under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; that, it has come in paragraph
no.3 of the impugned order dated 29.01.2014 passed
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehrdaun that goods
of the petitioner/complainant got destroyed in fire on
06.11.2013 but notwithstanding the fact of fire and
destruction of the immovable property of the
petitioner/complainant, the Trial Court has not directed
investigation by the police as per Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
nos.2 to 11 as well as State counsel would submit that
on the alleged date of incident i.e. 06.11.2013 it was
the date of deepawali and goods of the
petitioner/complainant were lying in open area; that, it
has specifically come in the report of the police that the
fire took place due to splinters falling on the goods of
the petitioner/complainant due to fireworks being
launched by the public on the occasion of deepawali.
5. Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 11
would further submit that the petitioner/complainant
tried to implicate the respondent nos.2 to 11 in false
and fabricated civil litigation for grabbing the land
2024:UHC:7628
unauthorizedly; that, order dated 29.01.2014 passed
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun and
consequent order dated 30.05.2015 passed by the 4th
Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun are well-reasoned
and speaking, therefore, the present petition is liable to
be dismissed on the admission stage itself.
6. Counsel for the petitioner/complainant would
submit that the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government
of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1, has held
that it is the duty of police to lodge the first information
report on receipt of information disclosing commission
of a cognizable offence.
7. Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 11
would submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court in plethora of
judgment has held that the Magistrate is not bound to
pass an order for lodging of the F.I.R. and investigation
of the case by police on each and every application
under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence.
8. It is trite that the power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has 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 view of
this Court, this is not a fit case where the power u/s
482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised.
9. From the above discussion of facts and
analysis of law including the judicial verdict relied upon,
this Court does not find any force in the argument as
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Consequently, the present C-482 petition lacks merits
and the same is hereby dismissed.
2024:UHC:7628
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court
concerned for information.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
04.10.2024
Mamta
MAM Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
TA
2.5.4.20=9f3ef5e40c7881302fcda45af
446d3419e6d6e990fbd25a59bdb957
bba484d0d, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=5DE1751A4F1D9CABF
D54852C9E68911CA8B66DD26690A1
RANI
91648AB5D8DD004EF0, cn=MAMTA
RANI
Date: 2024.10.18 11:41:25 +05'30'
