Uttarakhand High Court
Devendra Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 27 February, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:1382
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 755 of 2024
Devendra Bisht --Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Ms.
Sweta Dobhal and Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned Brief Holder
for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This application preferred under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., is filed by the applicant against the order
dated 13.10.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital in
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.533 of 2022 Devendra
Bisht Vs. Bhupesh Tiwari. A further challenge has been
led to the judgment and order dated 25.05.2023 passed
by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Revision No.154
of 2022 Devendra Bisht Vs. Bhupesh Tiwari.
3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that an
application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was filed by
the applicant before the trial court stating therein that
he is a proprietor in the Heart Centre, wherein, the
respondent No.2 had been appointed as Manager. In
the month of June 2022, the respondent No.2 took
control of the entire centre and he has not giving the
details of income and expenditure relating to the
aforesaid centre. The phone number of the applicant
has also been blocked, thus, the applicant is being
denied of his legal rights.
2025:UHC:1382
4. Learned trial court mainly considered the
question as to whether the respondent No.2 had
committed any cognizable offence against the applicant
and whether it would be in the interest of justice to
direct the Investigating Officer to register the case and
conduct the investigation. The trial court after hearing
the parties and on consideration of entire facts and
circumstance of the case, dismissed the application
moved by the applicant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
by its order dated 13.10.2022, holding that the
narration made by the complainant/applicant in the
complaint are purely of civil nature.
5. Against the aforesaid order, applicant
preferred a Criminal Revision No.154 of 2022 Devendra
Bisht Vs. Bhupesh Tiwari, which was decided by the
Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Haldwani, District Nainital, by way of a detailed
judgment. The revision preferred by the applicant was
also dismissed and accordingly, the order passed by
the learned trial court on 13.10.2022 was affirmed.
Challenging both the orders, the applicant is before
this Court.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and carefully perused the entire material available on
record. It is the case of the applicant that the Trial
Court as well as the Revisional Court have erred in law
in not taking the cognizance against the applicant; the
application moved by the applicant under Section
156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was wrongly rejected since it
contained prima-facie material to direct for registration
of FIR and for investigation; the trial court rejected the
2025:UHC:1382
application of the applicant in a cursory manner; the
Revisional court also did not notice this irregularity
and proceeded to pass the order of dismissal.
7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel
argued that it is case based upon concurrent findings
of facts.
8. Learned trial court after analyzing the entire
facts and circumstances of the case, passed the order
of rejection of the application moved by the applicant
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Learned Revisional court
by way of elaborate judgment and order dated
25.05.2023 has also did not find any illegality and
perversity in the order passed by the learned trial
court. This Court has also gone through the complaint
moved by the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
The contents of the complaint specifically mentions
about respondent No.2-Bhupesh Tiwari having been
appointed as Manager of the Saaol Health Centre
Haldwani, of which the applicant claims to be the
proprietor. The grievance of the applicant in the
complaint was that the respondent No.2-Bhupesh
Tiwari was not giving any information to the applicant
of the income of the centre and other related
information. Para 8 of the judgment and order passed
by the learned Additional CJM, Haldwani, specifically
mentions about the existence of a written agreement
executed on 01.09.2019, between applicant and the
respondent No.2, with regard to the running of the
Saaol Health Centre Haldwani. The averment made by
the applicant in the complaint is nothing but breach of
terms and conditions of agreement dated 01.09.2019.
2025:UHC:1382
9. Thus, this Court is also of the view that the
allegations made in the complaint are of civil nature,
for which, the applicant is free to avail remedies
available under the civil law. Learned counsel for the
applicant could not point out any other illegality in the
judgment and orders passed by the courts below. The
reasoning given by the trial court is perfect and sound
and there is hardly any scope to interfere in the
aforesaid orders.
10. As a result, the application moved under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed at the threshold itself.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
27.02.2025
PN
