Uttarakhand High Court
Maroof And Ors. --Applicants vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 18 February, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:1128
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application (u/s 528) No. 125 of 2025
Maroof and Ors. --Applicants
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant, appeared through video conferencing.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Ms.
Sweta Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This application preferred under Section 528
of the BNSS Act, is filed by the applicants assailing the
judgment and order dated 18.11.2024 passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee,
District Haridwar in Miscellaneous Application No.238
of 2024 Rukshar Vs. Maroof and Others, whereby, the
said Court has allowed the application moved by the
applicant/ respondent No.2 under Section 173(4) of the
B.N.S.S. Act and directed the SHO, Police Station,
Gangnahar, to register the case on the application filed
by the respondent No.2. Applicants have also
challenged the judgment and order dated 04.02.2025
passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Roorkee, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.179 of 2024
Maroof and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Another, whereby, the revision filed by the applicants
has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that an
application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS Act was
filed by the respondent No.2, wherein, she stated that
she was having matrimonial discord, wherefor, various
cases in various Courts remained pending. The
2025:UHC:1128
respondent No.2 also launched cases under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 12 of the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The respondent
No.2 in her application raised serious allegations of
commission of maarpeet with her, pouring acid attack,
however, an agreement was entered into between the
parties. According to the said compromise, it was
settled that the respondent No.2 would be allowed to
meet her children and they would be sent to school.
However, the respondent No.2 alleged in the
application that neither was she permitted to meet
children nor they were being sent to the school, and
further they were kept under hostage by the
applicants. Since, no action was taken on the
application, the respondent No.2 knocked the door of
the trial court, whereupon, the application under
Section 173(4) of the BNSS was allowed and the police
was directed to register a case and investigate the
same. The applicants carried a revision before the
Court of learned Sessions Judge, which was decided
and rejected by the learned First Additional Sessions
Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar by the impugned
order dated 04.02.2025 and order passed by learned
trial court was affirmed. Challenging both the orders,
the applicants are before this Court.
3. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as
well as learned State Counsel and perused the entire
documents available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has
argued that it is a case wherein the applicants have
falsely been implicated; there is no evidence against
them; a compromise had already been arrived at
2025:UHC:1128
between the parties in which a sum of Rs.14,25,000/-
had been given to the respondent No.2 and it was
settled that respondent No.2 would withdraw all the
cases filed by her; even thereafter she filed the
application under Section 173(4) of BNSS, whereupon,
this order was passed. The learned trial court as well
as Revisional court has committed the manifest error
of law by allowing the application moved by the
respondent No.2 under Section 173(4) of BNSS.
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel
has argued that in this matter, the respondent No.2
moved an application under Section 173(4) of BNSS,
which was allowed by the learned trial court on the
basis of the documents led before it. The Revisional
court also found favour with the reasoning recorded by
the learned trial court.
6. The applicants have lost before both the
Courts below. The veracity of the allegations leveled
against the applicants can only be examined in the
trial court, which can be decided after the evidence is
led.
7. In this view of the matter, I found no ground
to interfere with the investigation of the case. The
present C528 application lacks merit and the same is
accordingly dismissed at the threshold itself.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
18.02.2025
PN
