7 April vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3574 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

7 April vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 7 April, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2025:UHC:2608



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1011 of 2022
                          07 April, 2025
Vijaypal Singh                                          --Applicant

                               Versus

State Of Uttarakhand and Others                     --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
      Mr. Mahavir Kohli, learned counsel for applicant.
      Mr. K.S. Bohra, learned D.A.G. with Mr. J.P. Kandpal,
      learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/
      respondent Nos.1 to 3.
      None present for private respondents.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of the present C482 application, applicant has challenged the order dated 02.07.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Second in application No.14 of 2021 Vijaypal Singh Vs. Guddi and Others, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., as well as the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District Haridwar in Revision No.189 of 2021 Vijaypal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, whereby, the said revision was dismissed.

2. The facts in the nutshell are that the applicant was peacefully operating a garments shop under the tenancy of respondent No.4; the applicant with his family was out of station to participate in a family function and when returned on 07.02.2021, they came to know that the respondent No.4 and her family members had encroached the shop of applicant into their house by constructing a cemented wall in place of the opening of the shop and all the garment material in the said shop was missing. When applicant talked to the respondent

2025:UHC:2608 No.4 and her family members regarding the aforesaid incident, they did not talk to the applicant and started giving threats of dire consequences to the applicant and his family. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 and her family members lodged a false and frivolous FIR against the whole family of applicant. Police lodged FIR against Nitin Chauhan-son, Rajbala Chauhan-wife and Meenu Chauhan-daughter, under Sections 232, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, but straight forwardedly refused to lodge FIR against the private respondents in a very cursory manner, while the applicant informed the police earlier regarding the whole incident. Then, the applicant forwarded an application to Station House Officer, Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar, Human Rights Commission and D.G.P. Dehradun by the registered post, but, no action was taken against the respondents. After inaction on the part of respondent authorities, the applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate Second, but the same was rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 02.07.2021 on the ground that the matter is purely of civil nature. It was also observed that some civil litigation are pending between the parties in Court. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a revision bearing Revision No.189 of 2021 Vijaypal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, against the aforesaid order dated 02.07.2021 before the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, but, it too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 22.03.2022 having relied upon the grounds of dismissal of the learned Judicial Magistrate Second. Thus, the applicant is before this Court by challenging the aforesaid impugned orders.

2025:UHC:2608

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the police authority had not investigated the whole matter and without any proper investigation and without any evidence on record, they have not registered the FIR of the applicant against the private respondents. The police authorities are completely silent and supporting the private respondents despite the fact that the cognizable offence has been committed and as per the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumar Vs. Government of U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1; (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524, the police authorities are bound to register the FIR against the private respondents for such forgery which has been committed against the petitioner. He also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.1099 of 2020 Ashish Bhargava Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, in which it was observed that "Right to get speedy justice is a fundamental right of every citizen as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The purpose of lodging the First Information Report in a cognizable offence is to investigate the matter as the First Information Report has not been lodged in the matter, no question arises of any investigation. Non registration of the FIR rendered the petitioner remediless which is violation of fundamental right of a citizen as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary State of Bihar, Patna. FIR is the basis of launching a just and proper investigation in the matter. Since the FIR has not been registered, one cannot presume that there will be proper dispensation of justice to the aggrieved

2025:UHC:2608 person. Violation of fundamental right of a citizen gives an authority to this Court to pass appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice. Since the authorities failed to discharge their mandatory obligation of registering the First Information Report and the learned Magistrate also did not entertain the application filed by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner cannot be left remediless. Non registration of the FIR in a cognizable offence amounts to dereliction of duty on the part of the Officer In-charge of concerned Police Station. Non registration of the FIR, promptly, is fatal and delay in registering the FIR would cause injustice to the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, it would be apt to note here that the private respondents are not necessary to be heard at this stage."

4. In para-9 of the affidavit filed in support of the present C482 application, it is specifically pleaded by the applicant that no civil case is pending between the parties in any Court. It is argued that the finding of both the Courts are thus perverse and thus cannot sustain.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that the appellate court and the Revisional court have rightly passed the impugned orders on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature.

6. Learned counsel for private respondents has filed its counter affidavit. In counter affidavit, it is stated that the applicant has leveled false allegations against them and the applicant is trying to rope them in a false case. But one thing is explicitly clear from the counter affidavit filed by private respondent that no civil suit is pending between the parties.

2025:UHC:2608

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record, it is clear beyond doubt that both the learned Courts recorded an absolute wrong finding that civil cases are pending between the parties. This is something perverse and illegal, which warrant interference by this Court for end of justice.

8. Accordingly, the present C482 application is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 02.07.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Second in application No.14 of 2021 Vijaypal Singh Vs. Guddi and Others, file under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. as well as the impugned order dated 22.03.2022 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District Haridwar in Revision No.189 of 2021 Vijaypal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, are hereby quashed. The facts narrated in the complaint dated 08.02.2021 of the applicant prima-facie make out commission of a cognizable offence against the private respondents.

9. The upshot of the aforesaid discussions leads to this Court to direct the learned Magistrate to decide the application No.14 of 2021 Vijaypal Singh Vs. Guddi and Others, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant, afresh in the light of the observations made in this judgment.

10. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment to the Court below for doing the needful.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.04.2025 PN PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6 aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,

NEGI serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229 D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.04.09 16:00:45 +05'30'