Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 22 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 1 May, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                                   2025:UHC:3352



     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
        Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1436 of 2023
                                 01st May, 2025
Shri Tara Chand                                                .........Applicant

                                      Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another                               ......Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State.
Ms. Suraiya Naaz, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for
respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Present C482 application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the order dated 16.11.2022, passed by the court of learned VIth Additional Senior Civil Judge/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Misc. Application No.1899 of 2022, Tara Chand Vs. Minakshi Hatwal along with order dated 01.03.2023, passed by the court of learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No.278 of 2022, Tara Chand Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others.

2. Facts of the case in a nutshell are that applicant and husband of respondent no.2-Praveen Kumar entered into an agreement dated 14.09.2015 for sale and purchase of land, bearing Khata No.1358 part of Khasra No.1686 area 292.75 sq. meters situated at Mauja Chaktunwala Pargana Parwadoon, Teshil Sadar, District Dehradun, amounting to ₹27,19,500/- and in respect to the abovementioned agreement thereto the applicant paid ₹2,00,000/- to Praveen Kumar. Thereafter on repeated requests made by the applicant to Praveen Kumar to execute sale deed in respect to the agreement, several excuses were made by him and he demanded ₹5,70,000/- in addition and assured to execute the sale deed. Believing the assurance made by Praveen Kumar applicant deposited the

2025:UHC:3352 aforesaid amount in bank account of Praveen Kumar and respondent no.2. On 09.05.2021 Praveen Kumar died leaving behind respondent no.2 as his legal heir. Since then applicant had repeatedly made several request to respondent no.2 to execute sale deed of the said property in his favour but despite receiving ₹5,70,000/- from the applicant, respondent no.2 has avoided execution of the sale deed in favour of the applicant. Thereafter the applicant sent a legal notice through registered post to the counsel of the applicant. In reply to the said notice dated 01.11.2021 respondent no.2 sent a reply notice dated 11.11.2021 in which she undisputedly denied execution of the agreement to sale dated 14.11.2015.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondent no.2 despite having knowledge of the said agreement to sale dated 14.09.2015 and receiving the amount in lieu of the said sale agreement, neither executed the sale deed in favour of the applicant nor returned the total amount of ₹5,70,000/-. Respondent no.2 with intention of cheating had deceived the applicant and duped hard earned money of the applicant by not returning the amount or executing the sale deed in favour of the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the application made by the applicant against respondent no.2 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the court of learned VIth Additional Senior Civil Judge/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun was rejected stating therein that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.11.2022, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun whereby the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was rejected, the applicant filed a Criminal Revision No.278 of 2022, Tara Chand Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, which was also dismissed by learned VIIth Additional Sessions Judge vide its judgment and order dated 01.03.2023. Feeling aggrieved by these two orders, the applicant is before this Court.

2025:UHC:3352

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case as well as reasoning assigned by learned Magistrate as well as by revisional court, this Court is of the opinion that court below is correct in his view of rejecting the said application as the matter is purely civil in nature. The revisional court also took the same view.

7. This Court while hearing the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot embark upon sifting of the evidence and cannot decide the disputed question of facts, which can only be decided once the evidence is adduced by the parties. It is a trite law that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., shall be used sparingly in "rarest of rare cases". This case does not fall in the category of "rarest of rare case". There is no justifiable reason to disturb the concurrent finding of fact.

8. In this view of the matter, the C482 application is dismissed accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 01.05.2025 SK