Uttarakhand High Court
Kumud D. Vaidya And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 14 May, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.850 of 2024
Kumud D. Vaidya and another .........Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another ......Respondents
Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant.
Judgment reserved on 23.04.2025
Judgment delivered on 14.05.2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
has been preferred by the applicants against the judgment
dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No.246 of
2022 (Kamal Prasad vs. State and others), whereby, the said
court has allowed the revision and set aside the order dated
23.09.2022 passed by the learned IVth Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Complaint Case No.965 of
2019, Kamal Prasad vs. Kumud D. Vaidya.
2. That the brief facts leading to the filing of the
present application starts with the filing of Criminal Misc.
Case No. 1309 of 2018 in the court of IV Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
by respondent No. 2 herein for lodging of FIR against the
present applicants and Mr. Laxman Vaidya, inter alia, on the
grounds that mother of complainant, Smt Pushpa Kumari was
the owner of several properties who at the age of 70 years
had executed a registered Will dated 19.11.1995 bequeathing
property no.8 - B, Laxmi Road, Dehradun and land of
Khasra no. 179, 180, 181, 183, 185 total admeasuring 2.55
Acres including residential house and furniture etc. and the
property of Happy Garden Estate, Nala Pani, Mussoorie area
admeasuring 2 Acres and money of joint account and Rs.
50,000/- deposited with UTI (Union Trust of India) in favor
of the complainant and bequeathing certain properties to
applicant no. 1, 2 herein and Mr. Laxman Vaidya; the mother
of complainant had expired on 11.04.2010; complainant was
out of Dehradun town from July 2009 till February 2012,
taking benefit of which the applicants herein along with Mr.
Laxman Vaidya, by hatching a criminal conspiracy had
prepared forged Will dated 17.03.2010 and got the same
registered on 12.07.2010 and subsequently got the name
incorporated in records whereby the applicants herein along
with Mr. Laxman Vaidya had started posing as owners of
property no. 8-B (New No. 52/29), Laxmi Road, Dehradun,
Lt. General A.K. Jasveer Singh and Era Singh had witnessed
the said concocted will, subsequently, the complainant had
obtained the photocopy of the will under the right to
information and after the perusal of the same, it became
apparent that the alleged will was neither executed by the
mother of complainant nor signed by her, but was fabricated
after her death and the applicants herein along with Mr.
Laxman Vaidya got their names recorded in the records of the
Municipal Corporation and intends to sell the property; the
applicants herein, along with Mr. Laxman Vaidya, have
committed an offense under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468,
and 471 of the IPC; the complainant had tried to get lodged
the FIR, but the complaint was not received by the police,
and as such, a written complaint was filed before SSP,
Dehradun, on 17.03.2018, which also fetched no result.
3. The respondent no.2/complainant filed an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 10.12.2018 which was
registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.1309 of 2018.
On that application, a report was called by learned Magistrate
from the concerned police station and thereafter learned Vth
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun by his order
dated 16.02.2019 converted the application as a complaint
case No.965 of 2019 and by order dated 01.10.2019, the
applicant no.1 Kumud D. Vaidya was summoned to face the
trial under Section 420 IPC. Challenging the said order,
Criminal Revision No.254 of 2019 was filed by applicant
no.1 which was decided by learned IVth Additional Sessions
Judge, Dehradun by his order dated 17.02.2020, whereby, the
summoning order dated 01.10.2019 was set aside and the trial
court was directed to pass an order in accordance with law
and in light of the legal proposition envisaged under Section
202 Cr.P.C.
4. Subsequent thereto, learned IVth Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun by his order dated 23.09.2022
reached to the conclusion that since no opinion has been
expressed about the will being fraudulent or not, reached to
the conclusion that no case was made out and accordingly, it
dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
Challenging the said order dated 23.09.2022, the matter was
again carried to the IInd Additional Sessions Judge,
Dehradun in Criminal Revision No.246 of 2022 by the
respondent no.2/complainant who by his order dated
08.04.2024 allowed the revision and set aside the impugned
order dated 23.09.2022 and at the same time, remanded the
matter to the trial court for deciding the matter afresh by
passing speaking and reasoned order and in the light of the
legal authorities cited in the aforesaid judgment. Now
challenging the order dated 08.04.2024, present C482
application has been filed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
carefully perused the entire material available in the file.
6. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants
that once the trial court has reached to the conclusion that the
complaint was liable to be dismissed under section 203
Cr.P.C. inasmuch as no party could prove as to which will
was forged. The Revisional Court had no occasion to
interfere in a well reasoned order passed by the trial court.
7. It is further argued that the powers with the
revisional court are very limited to examine the illegality or
impropriety. However, the case in hand is missing any such
ingredient. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents/complainant supported the order passed by the
revisional court.
8. On bare perusal of the impugned order passed by
the revisional court, it is reflected that the order is based on
law and facts, it is an elaborate order which deals with
various authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time
to time. The revisional order has discussed each and every
point argued by learned counsel for the revisionist. It is well
settled that whenever a complaint is filed, the same is to be
dealt with in accordance with the principles of law and the
evidence adduced before it.
9. In my opinion, the revisional court was well
justified in allowing the revision and setting aside the order
of dismissal of complaint. The veracity of will is yet to be
tested during trial between the parties.
10. The next submission as advanced on behalf of the
learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisional court
has no power to remand the matter to the trial court. This
argument is liable to be discarded for the same reason that the
revisional court can remand the matter to subordinate court
with certain direction to pass an order afresh in the light of
observation made in the judgment and order of the revisional
court and the accused must be given due opportunity of
adducing/producing the evidence and the trial court is duty
bound to pass its order in view of the evidence adduced
before it. The revisional court followed this ratio, and
remanded the matter to the trial court for deciding the matter
in view of the observations and the legal authorities discussed
in the said judgment.
11. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is of the considered opinion that the impugned
revisional order does not suffer from the vices of law. There
is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned revisional
order. The C482 application fails and the same is,
accordingly, dismissed.
12. A copy of the order is transmitted to the trial court
to expedite the complainant case which is lying pending for a
long time. Both the parties are directed to appear before the
Court regularly and not to seek any unnecessary
adjournment.
13. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
14.05.2025
Ravi
