Uttarakhand High Court
Rakesh Aggarwal And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 22 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
1
Judgment reserved on: 05.08.2025
Judgment delivered on: 22.08.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.9 of 2024
Rakesh Aggarwal and Another ......Applicants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:
Ms. Devika Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned D.A.G. with Mr. Vikas
Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/
respondent No.1.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per)
By means for the present C482 application, the
applicants have put to challenge the FIR No.0089 of 2023
dated 13.04.2023 for the offences punishable under
Sections 427 and 506 IPC, registered with P.S. Basant
Vihar, District Dehradun, cognizance/summoning order
dated 07.08.2023 as well as the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No.5224 of 2023, State Vs. Rakesh Aggarwal
and another, pending before the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate-I, Dehradun.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants
owned a property, over which a two-storey building-
complex was constructed namely 'Palm Plaza' and several
shopping units were built in that complex. The applicants
and their family had sold some of the shopping units in the
complex to different buyers. They had sold two shopping
units to one of the buyers, who subsequently sold the shop
to respondent No.2. However, with time dispute started to
arise between the applicants and the respondent No.2 over
possession of certain shopping units. As per respondent
No.2, the applicants had destroyed signboards belonging to
him, and thereafter, lodged the FIR No.0089 of 2023 on
13.04.2023 against the applicants under Sections 427 and
506 IPC in P.S. Basant Vihar, District Dehradun, and
thereafter, learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Dehradun has
taken cognizance and summoned the applicants for trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that
the applicants are the absolute owner of the roof and
certain open space of the building, as duly mentioned in
the registered sale deed. She also submits that the
respondent No.2, after acquiring permission of two
shopping units in the building complex, began unlawful
encroachment upon other units therein. She further
submits that the respondent No.2 has also been exerting
undue pressure upon the applicants to sell other shopping
units at a substantial low price and has also obstructed few
common areas meant for use by other occupants.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the
applicants that respondent No.2 is a trespasser, who
repeatedly engaged in unlawful encroachments upon other
spaces including the roof of the building, which is the
exclusive property of the applicants. It is further contended
by her that the applicants had approached the concerned
authorities regarding such illegal encroachment by
respondent No.2 under Section 441 IPC, to prevent him
from indulging in such acts, however, the respondent No.2
still did not comply it. It is also contended by her that when
the applicants did not agree to sell other shopping units
and to allow the respondent No.2 to use the roof of
building, he started threatening the applicants by stating
that he would lodge a false FIR against them, which could
jeopardize the future prospects of applicant No.2, who
serves as a Merchant Nave Officer.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently
argues that the respondent No.2 has based his allegations
entirely on hearsay, as he was not personally present at the
time of alleged incident and that the CCTV Footage merely
depicts them entering and exiting the building in-conflict.
She further argues that on a bare perusal of FIR and other
materials available on record, no evidence emerges that can
establish the commission of any offence by the applicants.
She also argues that learned Judicial Magistrate has erred
in law in taking cognizance against the applicants, which
would result in causing unnecessary harassment to the
applicants, particularly to the applicant No.2, who is only
24 years of age and working in the Merchant Navy and
would face the difficulty in joining back his duty which
requires him to leave abroad.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel contends in
its counter affidavit that the Investigating Officer only after
conducting a proper investigation and recording the
statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.c.,
submitted the charge-sheet, on which the learned Judicial
Magistrate has lawfully taken cognizance and thereafter
summoned the applicants.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants on the basis
of rejoinder affidavit submits that State/respondent No.1
had admitted that an application under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
had indeed been moved by the applicants before the
concerned authorities, informing them of the intention of
respondent No.2 of installing signboards and sanitary
fittings on the roof. It is further contended that the
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be
solely relied upon to establish a prima facie case against
the applicants.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the material available on record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the present matter
consists of multiple sets of disputed facts, which can only
be settled before the learned Trial Court after conducting a
proper trial. Moreover, on bare perusal of the FIR and the
statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., prima-facie
case is made out against the applicants. Therefore, in the
light of aforesaid facts and circumstances and in order to
secure the interest of justice and to prevent the abuse of
process of law, this Court does not find it necessary to use
its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the
present matter. Notwithstanding, the above findings, it is a
well settled principle of law that an accused is presumed to
be innocent until proven guilty. Accordingly, it shall be
open to the applicant No.2 to move an appropriate
application before the Competent Authority seeking
permission to travel abroad for the purpose of discharging
his duties.
9. Accordingly, the present C482 application is
dismissed.
10. Interim order dated 08.01.2024 stands vacated.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed
of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
22.08.2025
PN
