Uttarakhand High Court

C528/567/2025 on 7 May, 2025

Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma

Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma

                   Office Notes, reports,
                   orders or proceedings
SL.
         Date        or directions and                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                   Registrar's order with
                        Signatures
      07.05.2025                            C-528 No. 567 of 2025
                                            Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A for the State.

3. Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

4. Counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 is taken on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused would submit that respondent no.2 had filed one more application i.e. Misc. Application No. 87 of 2025 under Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S., wherein, at paragraph no.10, the respondent no.2 had stated that on 27.01.2025 at about 7:00 PM, the parents- in-law of respondent no.2 i.e. petitioner nos.1 & 2 hereat, who were present at the spot, started beating respondent no.2 with common intention in order to compel her to give them a car and money and to establish illicit relations with cousin brother of petitioner no.3, Kawaljeet Singh; that, petitioner no.2 i.e. mother-in-law of the respondent no.2 caught hold of respondent no.2 by her hair and dragged her to the kitchen, opened the nozzle of gas cylinder and attempted to burn alive the respondent no.2.

He would further submit that when the report from the police was sought, then Sub- Inspector Hoshiyar Singh, P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in his report dated 17.03.2025 (certified copy on record) stated that on 27.01.2025, the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 were not present at the spot but were at Bangalore, Karnataka and the CCTV video recording and air tickets are attached alongwith the report.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/wife would submit that the presence of petitioner nos. 1 & 2 shown in the previous Misc. Application filed under Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S., was a typographical mistake and that was corrected in the second application and this inadvertent mistake should be considered in view of the complaint filed by the respondent no.2/complainant to the police in which the presence of the petitioner nos.1 & 2, is not stated.

He would further submit that efficacious remedy of revision is available to the petitioners/accused, therefore, the present petition should not be entertained.

7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused would rely upon a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in the case of 'Father Thomas vs. State of U.P. & Another', 2010 SCC OnLine ALL 2425, wherein at paragraph no.65, it is stated that an order made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision against such order is barred under sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 prays for and is granted time to apprise himself about the law on the point of revisability of the impugned order and place the same before the Court on the next date of listing.

9. List this matter on 20.06.2025.

10. Interim order dated 02.05.2025 to continue till the next date of hearing.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 07.05.2025 Akash