Uttarakhand High Court
Hon'Ble Vivek Bharti Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another" on 8 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
08.04.2025 C528 No.550 of 2024
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Sachin, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned Assistant
Government Advocate for the State.
3. This petition under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S.
has been filed for quashing and setting aside
impugned order dated 10.05.2024 passed by 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, District-
Nainital in Criminal Revision No.114/2023 "Rahul
Mathpaal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another".
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
/accused would submit that an FIR under Section 504
and 506 of IPC was registered against the
petitioner/accused; that, the charge-sheet was filed
under Sections 323, 354, 354(d), 504 and 506 of
IPC, however, the petitioner/ accused filed an
application under Section 239 Cr.P.C.(as the
procedure then was) for discharge; that, however,
this application was rejected vide order dated
19.07.2023 with Revision No.114/2023 filed against
the impugned order of the Magistrate.
Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner/accused would submit that in most strange
manner the Revisional Court of the 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Haldwani passed the order that, "यह
फौजदारी िनगरानी सं0 114 / 2023 इस आशय से �ीकार की जाती है िक
अिभयु� रा�ल उफ� राजेश मठपाल के िव�� केवल धारा 504, 506 आईपीसी
के अ�ग�त आरोप िवरिचत िकया जायेगा और शेष धाराओं म� आरोप िवरिचत नहीं
िकया जायेगा। इस सीमा तक िवचारण �ायालय का प्र�गत आदेश िदनांक
19.07.2023 को अपा� िकया जाता है।..."
Learned Senior Counsel would further submit
that the impugned order/judgment of the 1st
Additional Sessions in the revision is bad in the eyes
of law because after determining the impugned order
to be suffering from illegality, impropriety and
incorrectness it should have been remanded back to
the Magistrate to decide the application in view of
the observations made in the impugned judgment in
the revision; that, however, the learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge instead of sending back the file to
decide the discharge application under Section 239 of
Cr.P.C., has decided the whole case by itself, which
is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. Learned counsel for the State would submit
that the position of law is not dispute.
6. In view of the above, this Court is of the
considered view that the matter needs deliberation.
7. Admit.
8. Issue notice to respondent no.3 through ordinary
process and registered post, acknowledgement due as
well as by email and WhatsApp, if available.
9. Steps to be taken within two weeks.
10. List this case on 03.07.2025.
11. Effect and operation of the impugned order
dated 10.05.2024 passed by 1st Additional Sessions
Judge, Haldwani, District-Nainital in Criminal
Revision No.114/2023 "Rahul Mathpaal Vs. State of
Uttarakhand & Another" shall remain stayed till
further orders.
10. Stay Application (IA/1/2024) stands disposed
of accordingly.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
08.04.2025
SS
