[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Poonam Agarwal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 19 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:11416
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1053 of 2023
Poonam Agarwal --Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Tushar Chauhan, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Aditya Singh, learned counsel for applicant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.
Bhupendra Singh (through V.C.) and Mr. Sunil Chandra,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present C482 application, the
applicant has put to challenge the impugned judgment
and order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the learned First
Additional Senior Civil Judge/Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc.
Criminal Application No.146 of 2022 Poonam Agarwal
Vs. Uttam Singh and others, whereby, the application of
applicant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was dismissed
as well as the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in
Criminal Revision No.190 of 2022 Poonam Agarwal vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others, whereby, the said
revision was dismissed.
3. The facts in nutshell are that the applicant
moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated
24.06.2022 stating therein that the applicant's husband
Sh. Deepak Agarwal purchased the land in dispute
through a registered sale deed, which was registered in
Sub-Registrar's office as Volume No.524 Pg. No.175-176
2025:UHC:11416
S.No.2962. After taking possession of the said land, the
care of the said land was handed over to one Sh. Manvir
Singh. During the consolidation process, Manvir Singh in
collusion with Yakub Ali fraudulently got the property
papers registered in their name in 1996 on the basis of
possession of land, in which the applicant's husband
was not even made a party and the order for mutation
was also pending. Thereafter, the said land in-question
was sold by Manvir Singh to Amrik Singh-father of
respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the year 2000. When,
applicant approached to the learned Consolidation
Court, the application for mutation filed by her was
rejected in the year 2013 and against the said order, her
husband and brother in-law (Jeth) preferred an Appeal in
the Court of learned Settlement Officer of Consolidation,
Udham Singh Nagar on 29.08.2013, which was
transferred to learned Settlement Officer, Roorkee,
Haridwar, on the ground of keeping the case pending
intentionally and not being able to plead it, which was
allowed vide order dated 23.01.2018 setting aside the
order dated 16.08.2013 passed by learned Consolidation
Officer. Learned Settlement Officer also held that the sale
deed executed in favour of applicant's husband and there
is ample evidence that the applicant's husband came
into possession of the land in-question after execution of
the sale deed and he was not deliberately impleaded as
party before the learned Consolidation Officer and ex-
parte order dated 09.09.1996 was passed against
applicant's husband.
4. It is further state in the said application that
the said land in-question was acquired for National
Highway widening and the compensation for which
should have been given to the applicant's husband and
2025:UHC:11416
brother in-law, but the Special Land Officer, Udham
Singh Nagar, in collusion with the private respondents
handed over the same to them. Applicant's husband had
appeared in person in the office of Special Land Officer
several times and requested through registered letters
along with the evidence not to give compensation to
unauthorized persons, but no action was taken by him.
He also sent a request leeter to Hon'ble Chief Minister of
Uttarakhand and higher officials to stop the
compensation. He also reported the above matter to P.S.
Kiccha on 10.06.2022 and to S.S.P., Udham Singh
Nagar, on 11.06.2022, but, her report was not lodged.
Thereafter, applicant filed 156(3) Cr.P.C. application
which was registered as Misc. Criminal Application
No.146 of 2022 Poonam Agarwal Vs. Uttam Singh and
others. The said application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
was rejected by learned ACJM vide order dated
07.07.2022. Challenging the order dated 07.07.2022
applicant preferred a Criminal Revision No.190 of 2022,
which too met with the same fate vide order dated
13.12.2022. Hence, the applicant is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted
the learned Magistrate as well as Revisional Court
without considering the facts and circumstances and
without appreciating the merits of the case, rejected the
application of the applicant and dismissed the revision of
the applicant. He further submitted that fraud had been
played upon the applicant's husband and brother in-law
(Jeth) and also the co-owner of the land in-question, for
which inquiry was already underway as per the direction
of learned Chief Minister and also from the office of
learned Commissioner, Kumaun Mandal, during the
pendency of inquiry, respondents were illegally made to
2025:UHC:11416
benefit from money which came from Government
towards acquisition of land. He also submits that the
compensation for the same should not be released in
favour of the private respondents.
6. It is further contended by him that the
impugned orders passed by the learned courts below are
illegal, improper and against the material available on
record. He further submitted that from bare perusal of
the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cognizable
offence was made out against the private respondents.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel and learned
counsel for private respondents contend that both the
Courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders
and rightly held that the allegations are of civil in nature,
thus, the present C482 application deserves to be
dismissed.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having gone through the entire material
available on record, this Court is of the view that the
dispute is purely of civil nature and the Courts below
have done no illegality in passing the impugned orders.
The reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge in the
judgment and order dated 13.12.2022 sound
satisfactory. Therefore, no interference is required.
9. Accordingly, the present C482 application is
dismissed. However, the parties are at liberty to avail the
remedies available under relevant private law.
10. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
19.12.2025
PN
