Uttarakhand High Court
23 April vs State Of Uttarakhand on 23 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:2937
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1309 of 2022
23 April, 2025
Jitendra Tomar --Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Anoop Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant,
appeared through video conferencing.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned D.A.G., Mr. S.C.
Dumka, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuli and Ms.
Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holders for the State
of Uttarakhand/respondent.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present C482 application,
applicant has put to challenge the impugned judgment
and order dated 18.11.2021 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No.08
of 2021, Jitendra Tomar Vs. State, whereby, the said
revision was dismissed and further to direct the
concerned Court to release the amount of R.s99,995/-
from the accounts of accused (Bank-Kotak Mahindra
Bank, Account No.9014106180 and 8113512625) to the
account of applicant (Bank-State Bank of India, Account
No.11084430149, IFSC-SBIN0015051).
3. The facts in nutshell are that on 18.04.2020,
through online fraud the accused namely Rahul Mishra
@ Vicky and Tarik Khan snared the applicant and got
transferred an amount of Rs.99,995/- to PAYTM
registered with Mob. No.9205736309. The applicant for
the aforesaid online fraud registered a complaint in
Cyber Crime Department and it verified the aforesaid
2025:UHC:2937
transaction and online fraud. After due verification by
the Cyber Crime Department, applicant lodged an FIR
No.281 of 2020 dated 22.05.2020 at P.S. Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar under Section 420 of IPC
and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.
During investigation, it was found that the aforesaid
amount was transferred from the applicant's bank to the
bank account of accused, therefore, the bank accounts of
accused were seized by the Bank on the direction of the
police.
4. The applicant thereafter filed a Miscellaneous
Application No.759 of 2020 State Vs. Vicky, in the Court
of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, praying for transfer/
release of the said amount from the account of the
accused to his account, which was dismissed vide
judgment and order dated 08.12.2020. Feeling aggrieved
by the said order, applicant filed a Criminal Revision
No.08 of 2021 Jitendra Tomar Vs. State, in the Court of
learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, which was
also dismissed vide judgment and order dated
18.11.2021. Thus, the applicant is before this Court by
challenging the impugned judgment and order dated
18.11.2021.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
both the Courts below wrongly held that at this stage of
the case, it cannot be decided that the amount received
in the aforesaid account of the accused is of the
applicant and wrongly observed that the said amount is
the property of the case. He contends that according to
the Cyber Crime Department and the report submitted
by the police, it is manifest that the amount received in
the aforesaid account of the accused is of the applicant.
2025:UHC:2937
He further submits that both the Courts below erred in
law and failed to appreciate that the police had no
objections, in case the learned lower Court directs for the
release of the aforementioned amount in the applicant's
account as it would not affect the investigation.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits
that the Trial Court and the Revisional Court have rightly
dismissed the revision of the present applicant saying
that at this stage of the case the prosecution evidence
has not been started and it is not clear that as to whom
the money belongs.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the impugned order passed by
learned Revisional Court as well as the order passed by
learned Magistrate, this Court found favour with the
reasoning given by both the learned Courts. Learned
counsel for the applicant could not point out any
material illegality or irregularity in the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Revisional Court. It is a
well-reasoned judgment, and, therefore, no interference
is warranted. Moreover, applicant has not challenged the
order dated 08.12.2020 passed by learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate.
8. In view of the above, the present C482
application is dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
23.04.2025
PN
PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF
NEGI
08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.04.23 15:42:01 +05'30'
