Uttarakhand High Court
Taukeer Ahmad vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 28 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:2310
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1116 of 2022
Taukeer Ahmad --Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Zafar Siddique, learned counsel for applicant,
appeared through video conferencing.
Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned D.A.G. with Mr.
Vikas Uniyal and Ms. Sweta Dobhal, learned Brief
Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
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 06.09.2021 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Haldwani, District Nainital, in Miscellaneous
Criminal Case No.316 of 2021 Taukeer Ahmad and
Saurabh Agarwal, whereby, the application of
applicant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was
dismissed and judgment and order dated 13.01.2022
passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions
Judge, Haldwani, District Haldwani in Criminal
Revision No.75 of 2021 Taukeer Vs. State and
another, whereby, the said revision was dismissed by
affirming the judgment and order dated 06.09.2021.
3. The facts in nutshell are that on
05.11.2017, the applicant had taken a plot of
respondent No.2 situated at Bareilly Road on a
monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-; the applicant by
incurring Rs.2,00,000/- got constructed a Tin Shed
2025:UHC:2310
over the said plot and started business under the
name and style of Sakleni Fabrications; the
respondent No.2 increased the rent from Rs.10,000/-
to Rs.15,000/-; on 18.11.2019 respondent No.2
forcibly and without assigning any cogent reason got
locked the shop and stated that when the applicant
will pay Rs.25,000/- per month then only the keys of
the shop will handed over to him; in the said shop
various articles of fabrication, welding machine,
generator, raw material etc. total worth of
Rs.4,00,000/- were lying; in the meantime, due to
lockdown the market remained closed and after
declaration of unlock, when he reached to the shop
on 10.09.2020, he found all the said material worth
Rs.4,00,000/- misplaced from the shop and the said
shop was given on rent to some other person. When
the applicant asked the respondent No.2 about his
material, respondent No.2 started abusing and
assaulting the applicant and stated that no material
of the applicant was lying in the shop and threatened
him with dire consequences.
4. The applicant approached the police
authorities to lodge his complaint, but when they
turned a blind eye, he approach to the learned
Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (JD), Haldwani,
District Nainital, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating
therein all the offensive activity of the respondent
No.2 with a prayer to lodge the first information
report against respondent No.2. Thereafter, learned
Magistrate vide impugned order dated 06.09.2021 in
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.316 of 2021 Taukeer
2025:UHC:2310
Ahmad and Saurabh Agarwal, has dismissed the said
application of the applicant under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C. with the finding that the dispute between the
parties is of civil in nature. Aggrieved by the order
dated 06.09.2021, applicant preferred a Criminal
Revision No.75 of 2021 Taukeer Vs. State and
another, before the Court of learned Sessions Judge,
Nainital. Learned Revisional Court has dismissed the
said criminal revision vide judgment and order dated
13.01.2022 and confirmed the judgment and order of
the learned Magistrate on the very same ground.
Hence, the applicant is before this Court challenging
the impugned orders.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted the impugned orders passed by the
learned Courts below are illegal, improper and
against the material available on record. While
passing the impugned order, 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
2025:UHC:2310
element also in the complaint of victim. Hence, both
the impugned orders are based on surmises and
conjectures.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits
that the police after due inquiry found out that there
was no criminal dispute between the parties. The
learned Courts below have rightly passed the
impugned orders as the matter involved a civil
dispute.
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.
This is not a case where this Court should interfere
with. In para-7 of his application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., the applicant himself stated that
respondent No.2 removed the material from shop in-
question in his presence. Thus, no offence under
Section 379 IPC made out. The reasoning given by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Para 8 and
9 of the judgment and order dated 13.01.2022 sound
satisfactory. Therefore, no interference is required.
8. Accordingly, the present C482 application
is dismissed. However, the parties are at liberty to
avail the remedies available under relevant private
law.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
28.03.2025
PN
