Uttarakhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Chadha vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 February, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2025
Ashok Kumar Chadha ...Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, AGA for the State.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
The challenge in this revision is made to the
following:-
(i) Judgment and order dated 07.09.2024
passed in Criminal Case No. 1810 of
2019, State v. Ashok Kumar Chadha, by
the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nainital ("the case"). By it,
the revisionist has been convicted under
Section 193 IPC and sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and
in default of payment of fine, to undergo
additional imprisonment for a period of
ten days; and
(ii) Judgment and order dated 23.12.2024,
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of
2024, Ashok Kumar Chadha v. State of
Uttarakhand, by the court of Sessions
Judge, Nainital ("the appeal"). By it, the
appeal has been dismissed and the
judgment and order passed in the case
affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
3. The revisionist did file Criminal Writ Petition No.
1959 of 2017, Ashok Kumar Chadha v. State of Uttarakhand
and others, in this Court for quashing the FIR in Case Crime
No. 164 of 2017, under Sections 417, 418, 420, 406 & 506
IPC, P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar ("the Writ
Petition"). The Writ Petition was filed through an employee
and pairokar Pramod Kumar Sah. Pramod Kumar Sah in
Annexure 6 to that Writ Petition, filed a bail order dated
22.11.2017 passed in Case Crime No. 243 of 2017, under
Sections 406, 420 IPC, Police Station Sihani Gate, District
Ghaziabad, by the Incharge Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad.
Subsequently, it was revealed that the bail order was not
genuine. By an order dated 17.07.2019 passed in that Writ
Petition, the Court directed to file a complaint under Section
340 CrPC, based on which subsequently the revisionist has
been convicted.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the revisionist was in jail at the relevant point of time;
Mohit Goyal had handed over the bail order to the family
members of the revisionist; there had no reason to doubt its
genuineness. It is argued that even in this Court, the
revisionist did not file the forge bail order.
5. It is admitted that the revisionist was in jail at the
relevant point of time. The question that would fall for
discussion is as to how the revisionist can be held guilty for
filing false document, which he had not filed? Can he be
vicariously or as a conspirator be held guilty of filing a false
document? These aspects require deliberation.
6. Heard and perused the file.
7. Admit.
8. List this matter on 14.05.2025.
9. Heard on Exemption Application (IA No. 1 of 2025).
10. The revisionist seeks exemption from surrendering.
11. Having considered, the execution of the impugned
sentence shall remain suspended during and until the
conclusion of the revision, subject to the revisionist executing
a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
12. Exemption application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
13.02.2025
Avneet/
