Uttarakhand High Court
February vs M/S Chhote Lal Ashok Kumar on 11 February, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:723
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 738 of 2024
11 February, 2025
Vandana Arora And Ors
--Applicants
Versus
M/s Chhote Lal Ashok Kumar
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Rachit Manglik, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Devansh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of the present C528 application,
applicants have put to challenge the following orders:-
(i) Cognizance order dated 29.11.2023, passed by
the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, Udham Singh
Nagar in Criminal Case No.7178 of 2020, M/s
Chotte Lal Ashok Kumar vs. M/s Kuber
Industries & others.
(ii) Revisional order dated 06.10.2023, passed by
learned Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in
Criminal Revision No.335 of 2022, M/S Chotte
Lal Ashok Kumar vs. M/s Kuber Industries &
others.
(iii) Revisional Order dated 07.09.2024 passed by the
First Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur in
2025:UHC:723
Criminal Revision No.1 of 2024, Vandana Arora &
others vs. M/S Chotte Lal Ashok Kumar &
another.
2. The main contention which has been
canvassed by the applicants before this Court
challenging the orders is that while summoning the
applicants, the firm i.e. M/s Kuber Industries was not
summoned and further no cognizance was taken against
the said firm.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
applicants relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of re Himanshu vs. B. Shivamurity
& another, reported in SCC OnLine SC 83, whereby it has
been stated that without taking cognizance against the
firm, the cognizance order against the accused/partners
would be illegal.
4. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court while
hearing the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
applicants has been pleased to issue notice to the
respondent/complainant vide the order dated 25.10.2024
and at the same time, stayed the effect and operation of
the summoning order dated 29.11.2023, passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh
Nagar in Criminal Case No.7178 of 2020.
5. Today, the matter is listed on admission.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
candidly submits that there being an illegality in the
orders impugned in the C528 application, therefore, this
C528 application may be allowed by setting aside the
orders and the Judicial Magistrate may be directed to
pass afresh order in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Himanshu (Supra).
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
2025:UHC:723
and having gone through the record, this Court is of the
view as adopted by learned counsel for the respondent.
8. Accordingly, the C528 application is allowed.
The orders dated 29.11.2023, 06.10.2023 & 07.09.2024,
as mentioned in paragraph no.1 of this judgment, are
hereby quashed. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur
is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
11.02.2025
AK
