Uttarakhand High Court
May vs State Of Uttarakhand Through Secretary ... on 1 May, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:3356
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 854 of 2023
01 May, 2025
Heerawati
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand Through Secretary In The
Department Of Home, Dehradun & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA for the State.
Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat and Mr. Mohit Kumar, learned counsel for
the private respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of present C482 application, applicant
has put to challenge the judgment and order dated
04.10.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
Kashipur in Criminal Complaint No.1287 of 2021 as well as
the judgment and order dated 04.01.2023, passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur in Criminal
Revision No.141 of 2021.
2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant is a
resident of Village Piaga, Police Station I.T.I. Udham Singh
Nagar. Applicant's father had land in village Fasiyapura,
Tehsil Kashipur, Khasra No.120, area 1.773 hectares and
Khasra No.95 area 1.104 hectares total area 2.877
hectares. On the above land, Amar Singh, OmPrakash and
Roopchand sons of Totaram got their names wrongly
mutated by showing themselves as sons of Tularam.
2025:UHC:3356
Khasra No.120 area 1.052 hectares was wrongly mutated
in the name of Smt. Rajrani and Ms. Sonia Sharma, when
the applicant came to know about this fact then she filed a
suit in the court of Tehsildar for cancellation of the name of
above mentioned Amar Singh etc. which was decided in
favour of the applicant on 22.12.2011 and the applicant's
name was recorded as heir in the above mentioned land.
The name of Amar Singh etc. was cancelled and all the
deeds made by them were also cancelled. Despite this order
being entered in the documents, Rajrani and Sonia Sharma
by making Sanjeev Sharma their general power of attorney
holder got the deed of Khasra No.120, measuring 0.017
hectares of land done in the name of Mrs. Tarawati and
Poorandei by fraud. Thereafter, applicant moved an
application for taking action against those persons to the
In-charge of Police Station I.T.I. Kashipur on 15.02.2021.
When no action was taken by them, applicant filed a
Criminal Complaint No.1287 of 2021 before the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. But, the
learned Magistrate dismissed the aforesaid criminal
complaint vide order dated 04.10.2021. Feeling aggrieved,
applicant preferred a Criminal Revision No.141 of 2021
before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur
and the said revision was also dismissed by the Sessions
Judge vide judgment and order dated 04.01.2023. Thus,
against the aforesaid judgments and orders, applicant is
before this Court.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
both the courts below have committed gross illegality and
perversity while dismissing the criminal complaint and
revision petition of the applicant. He further submits that
prima facie the case was made out against the respondents
for a separate cause of action and the learned Magistrate
2025:UHC:3356
was bound to take cognizance for separate cause of action.
But, both the courts below did not consider the legal
position and dismissed the complaint as well as revision
petition in a cursory manner.
5. I have gone through the reasoning assigned by
learned Magistrate as well as learned revisional court while
passing the impugned judgments and orders. The courts
below have categorically stated in their orders that the
dispute between the parties regarding transaction of land is
purely civil. The revisional court in para 13 of its judgment
has categorically stated that complainant (applicant) lodged
the FIR and complaint about the same incident repeatedly,
whereas according to law, more than one criminal
proceedings cannot be initiated for the same matter.
Further, it is a case of civil nature, for which, the civil court
has already resolved the matter and declared the sale deed
dated 04.01.2012 void.
6. In this view of the matter, I find no irregularity
or illegality in the orders passed by the courts below.
There are concurrent findings of fact against the
applicant and there is no ground for interference in this
matter. Accordingly, the present criminal misc.
application fails and is hereby dismissed.
7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
01.05.2025
AK
