Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Jai Ram And Another on 7 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.1102 of 2023
Prakash Chand
--Applicant
Versus
Jai Ram and another
--Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Sheetal Selwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Ms. Shazia Parveen, learned counsel i/b Mr. Parikshit Saini,
learned counsel for respondent no.1.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Dy.A.G. for the State/respondent no.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This C482 application is preferred against
judgment dated 25.03.2023 passed by Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.587 of
2019 (Jai Ram v. Prakash Chand and another) u/s 120-B
IPC.
2. Applicant filed a complaint before the Court
that on 11.12.2002 his elder brother was married with
Ms. Rama. Behavoiur of brother and sister in law of
complainant was not good and they along with other
persons began to usurp and grab the property. In 2004,
they both were dispossessed from the property due to
which they became annoyed from the complainant. They
hurled abuses to him, threatened him of dire
consequences including threat to his life, threats over
missed calls and further to book him in false case of rape
and molestation. On that complaint, the trial Court by
its order dated 07.05.2019 summoned respondent no.1
to face trial u/s 120-B IPC. Criminal Revision No.587 of
2019 was carried by respondent no.1 which was decided
by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar by its
judgment dated 25.03.2023, thereby, allowing the
revision and setting aside the summoning order dated
07.05.2019. Challenging the revisional order,
complainant has come up before this Court.
3. I have heard the parties and perused the
impugned judgment.
4. The revisional Court has allowed the revision
by observing that the respondent no.1 gives threats over
missed calls, which fact is not possible as none can give
direct threats over missed calls. So far as the evidence
produced on behalf of complainant is concerned, the
witness produced u/s 200 Cr.P.C. is not a witness of
occurrence because the fact of absence of complainant is
stated by his mother CW1 herself. Moreover, CW1 Smt.
Draupadi Devi and CW2 Darshan have been produced
u/s 202 Cr.P.C. None of these witnesses has stated
about any separate act of the informant rather it is jointly
stated regarding the other family members about the
alleged occurrence. Thus, the Court held that no
involvement of respondent no.1 can be inferred as his
name revealed only at the instance of co-accused Ballu
Ram. Furthermore, the Trial Court held the respondent
no.1 involved in the incident merely on the basis of report
given by police which is completely erroneous for the
reason that merely on the basis of one line that the
mobile number was given was of the respondent no.1 and
hence he was involved in the incident, is misconceived.
5. On the aforesaid grounds, the revisional Court
found that there was no involvement of respondent no.1
in the crime and it accordingly allowed the revision and
set aside the summoning order.
6. I find no illegality in the said order. The order
is based upon the findings of fact. Consequently, C482
application fails and the same is dismissed.
7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.08.2025
Rdang
