Uttarakhand High Court
6 June vs Bishop S.R. Cutting (Deceased) And Ors on 16 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:4965
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1117 of 2024
16 June, 2025
Indian Church Trustees --Applicant
Versus
Bishop S.R. Cutting (Deceased) and Ors. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:
Mr. Sahil Mullick, learned counsel for applicant.
None present for respondent No.4.
Mr. Nivesh Bahuguna, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Mr.
Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent No.6.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present C482 application, the
applicant has put to challenge the impugned judgment
and order dated 30.08.2017, passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Miscellaneous
Case No.1061 of 2017 Indian Church Trustees Vs. Bishop
S.R. Cutting and Ors., whereby, the learned Magistrate
dismissed the application of the applicant under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., as well as the judgment and order dated
14.07.2023 passed by learned Fifth Additional Sessions
Judge, Dehradun, in Criminal Revision No.217 of 2017
Indian Church Trustees Vs. Bishop S.R. Cutting and Ors.,
whereby, the said revision was dismissed and the
judgment rendered by the learned CJM was upheld.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the
applicant is an autonomous body incorporated under the
Indian Church Act, 1927 and is the absolute owner of all
the properties of Churches of India including the present
property in-question namely Christ Church, Mussoorie.
2025:UHC:4965
Applicant has filed an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dehradun in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.1061 of
2017 Indian Church Trustees Vs. Bishop S.R. Cutting and
Ors., with a prayer to direct the concerned Police Station
to lodge a First Information Report against the
respondent Nos.1 to 5 stating therein that the respondent
Nos.1 to 5 had illegally and fraudulently sold the
property, namely Parsonage, forming part of Christ
Church, Mussoorie, situated on Camel's Back Road,
Mussoorie including the residence of Priest of applicant,
admeasuring 2731 Sq.Mtrs. belonging to the applicant, by
preparing the forged Title documents of the said property
in favour of Church of North India, Agra and sold the
property to M/s M.Y.R.T.L. Martin and Company Pvt. Ltd.
(through its Managing Director i.e. respondent No.2) vide
sale deed dated 11.03.1994. The learned CJM vide its
judgment and order dated 30.08.2017 dismissed the
application of the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
and held that on perusal of the application, no prima facie
offence is made out against the respondents and the
dispute is civil in nature. Thereafter, the applicant
challenging the said order dated 30.08.2017 preferred a
Criminal Revision No.217 of 2017 Indian Church Trustees
Vs. Bishop S.R. Cutting and Ors., before the learned Fifth
Additional Sessions Judge, which too met the same fate
by affirming the judgment of the learned Magistrate.
Thus, the applicant is before this Court by challenging
both the impugned judgments and orders.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the impugned judgments and orders passed by the
learned Courts below are illegal, improper and against the
material available on record. While passing the impugned
2025:UHC:4965
orders, the sole ground of rejection of applicant's
application is that the dispute is of civil in nature. The
Courts below have committed serious error of law and
have not followed the various judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, wherein, it has held that whenever
cognizable offence is disclosed, the police officials are
bound to register the same and in case it is not done,
direction to register the same can be given. He further
submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court in various
pronouncement has also held that where in case both
criminal and civil element are reflected, a person cannot
be left free from facing criminal prosecution only on the
ground that there is civil element also in the complaint of
victim. Hence, both the impugned judgments and orders
are based on surmises and conjectures.
5. He further submits that there is no other
alternative efficacious, speedy, effective and adequate
remedy, except filing this Criminal Miscellaneous
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel contends
that both the Courts below have rightly passed the
impugned orders and rightly held that the offence is of
civil in nature, thus, the present C482 application
deserves to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having gone through the entire material
available on record, this Court is of the view that the
dispute is of civil nature and the Courts below have done
no illegality in passing the impugned orders. The
reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge in Para 6 and 7 of the judgment and order dated
14.07.2023 sound satisfactory. Therefore, no
interference is required.
2025:UHC:4965
8. Accordingly, the present C482 application is
dismissed. However, the parties are at liberty to avail the
remedies available under relevant private law.
9. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
16.06.2025
PN
PREETI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe3833
1bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab,
NEGI
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE
064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC,
cn=PREETI NEGI
Date: 2025.06.18 16:39:48 +05'30'
