Uttarakhand High Court
22 July vs Pali & Others on 22 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:6411
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 717 of 2024
22 July, 2025
Parmal
--Revisionist
Versus
Pali & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of present criminal revision,
revisionist has put to challenge the order dated
04.07.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar
in Misc. Criminal Case No.11 of 2024, Parmal vs. Pali &
another and further directed the learned Sessions Judge
to allow the application filed by the revisionist under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and summon the respondents
under appropriate Sections of BNS, 2023 as well as
under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Brief facts of the case are that an application
was filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure
Code by the applicant, Parmal--an individual belonging
to a Scheduled Caste--seeking registration of an FIR
against several individuals, including private persons and
government officials, at the Piran Kaliyar Police Station in
Haridwar. The core of the applicant's claim revolves
around a land dispute involving allegedly fraudulent
2025:UHC:6411
transfers and mutations. The applicant alleged that the
land he originally sold to Smt. Pali in 2008 was
subsequently resold and then gifted multiple times,
eventually ending up in the name of one Jahid. Crucially,
applicant claims that Khasra No. 406/2, which he
asserts originally belonged to him, was fraudulently
transferred through a forged gift deed. He further accuses
certain government officials--specifically the
Lekhpal/Patwari, Kanungo, and Nayab Tehsildar--of
accepting bribes and improperly mutating the land
records, first in the name of Laxmichand and then in the
name of Jahid, despite being aware of the illegitimacy of
the transactions. It is also stated that on May 15th, 2022,
Jahid, Kulveer, and Telluram, along with others,
unlawfully entered Khasra No. 406/2 and illegally cut
down approximately one thousand trees. When the
applicant confronted them, he was allegedly subjected to
physical assault, verbal abuse, and caste-based slurs.
Despite filing a complaint with the local police, no action
was taken. Subsequently, an application was submitted
to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar, but still
no action ensued. In his application, the applicant has
requested that legal action be initiated and a case be
registered against the accused persons. Said application
has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge,
Haridwar by the impugned judgment and order.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits
that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Haridwar, is contrary to the facts and circumstances of
the case as well as the evidence available on record. She
further submits that respondent nos. 1 to 5, in collusion
with respondent nos. 6, 7, and 8, fraudulently got the
land registered in their names. When the applicant
2025:UHC:6411
attempted to inquire into the matter, he was subjected to
harassment and was also targeted with caste-based
slurs. It is further submitted that the application filed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was erroneously dismissed
by the trial court on the ground that the dispute is of a
civil nature and that the applicant is attempting to give a
criminal colour to what is essentially a civil matter.
4. Per contra, the learned State Counsel submits
that the trial court, after duly appreciating all the
material available on record, has rightly passed the
impugned order.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
6. The trial court, in its order, held that there
exist specific legal remedies under civil law for addressing
disputes arising out of defective sale transactions, gifts,
or mutations in land records. The trial court emphasized
that such matters cannot be adjudicated summarily or
through criminal proceedings, and instead must be
addressed through appropriate civil legal processes. It
was further opined that, under the factual circumstances
presented, no case was made out for police investigation.
Accordingly, the applicant was advised to seek recourse
before a competent civil court.
7. From perusal of the order dated 04.07.2024
and findings recorded by the trial court, this Court is
with the view taken by the trial court, upholding the
reasoning that the dispute pertains to civil rights and
does not warrant criminal investigation.
8. In this view of the matter, I find no irregularity
or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Thus,
there is no ground for interference in this matter.
2025:UHC:6411
Accordingly, the present criminal revision fails and is
hereby dismissed.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
22.07.2025
AK
