[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Usha Mittal And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 11 February, 2026
2026:UHC:798
Judgment Reserved on: 12.12.2025
Judgment Pronounced on:11.02.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1389 of 2025
Usha Mittal and Others ......Applicants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Karthik Jayashankar, learned counsel, Mr. Awnish Upadhyay, learned
counsel and Mr. Prashant, learned counsel (through VC) appearing for the
Applicants.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned Additional Government Advocate for
the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel with Mr. Maneesh Bisht, learned
counsel for the Respondents No. 4 & 5.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 528 of
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the
Applicants seeking quashing and setting aside of the judgment and final
order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions
Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2025, whereby the
revision filed by the Applicants against the order of the City Magistrate,
Dehradun dated 23.11.2024 came to be dismissed.
2. The dispute pertains to an immovable property situated at Race Course,
Dehradun, which has remained in the ownership and possession of the
Applicants' family since 1962. Over time, four residential structures
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1389 of 2025----------Usha Mittal and Others Versus State of Uttarakhand & others-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:798
were constructed on the said property, which were used both as family
residences and for lawful tenancy purposes.
3. On 11.10.2012, following a violent incident involving Respondent No.
4 and his associates, the learned City Magistrate, Dehradun initiated
proceedings under Sections 145/146(1) CrPC and sealed one house
forming part of the larger property, registering the matter as Case No.
19 of 2012. The remaining structures continued in peaceful possession
of the Applicants and their tenants.
4. The Applicants' predecessor-in-interest, Late Shri Subhash Chandra
Mittal, thereafter instituted Original Suit No. 217 of 2013 before the
Civil Court at Dehradun seeking permanent injunction in respect of the
subject property. During the pendency of the civil proceedings, this
Court, in C482 No. 694 of 2013, repeatedly directed maintenance of
status quo, culminating in an interim injunction order dated 27.10.2017
passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, which
continues to operate till date.
5. In view of the subsisting civil injunction and status quo orders, this
Court ultimately dismissed the proceedings arising out of Section 145
CrPC as infructuous on 24.09.2024, a fact admittedly within the
knowledge of all concerned authorities including the City Magistrate
and the Station House Officer, Nehru Colony, Dehradun.
6. Despite such dismissal and in alleged disregard of the subsisting civil
court injunction, Respondent No. 4 moved an application on
23.11.2024 before the City Magistrate for release of the sealed
property. On the very same day, without issuing notice to or hearing the
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1389 of 2025----------Usha Mittal and Others Versus State of Uttarakhand & others-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:798
Applicants, the City Magistrate ordered release of the sealed house in
favour of Respondent No. 4, pursuant to which physical possession was
taken on 24.11.2024, accompanied by alleged vandalism and breaking
of seals in the presence of police personnel.
7. Aggrieved, the Applicants preferred Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2025
before the Sessions Court at Dehradun. The said revision was
ultimately dismissed by the First Additional Sessions Judge on
09.07.2025, affirming the order of the City Magistrate, which has led to
the filing of the present application invoking the inherent supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that the
impugned order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the City Magistrate,
Dehradun is wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the proceedings
under Sections 145/146(1) CrPC, registered as Case No. 19 of 2012,
had already been rendered infructuous by this Court in C482 No. 694 of
2013 by order dated 24.09.2024. It was urged that once this Court itself
declared the said proceedings infructuous on account of the subsisting
civil court injunction, no authority survived with the Magistrate to pass
any consequential or substantive order in respect of the same
proceedings.
10. Learned counsel for the Applicants further contended that the interim
injunction order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Dehradun in Original Suit No. 217 of 2013, directing
maintenance of status quo over the subject property, continues to
operate till date. It was argued that the moment a competent civil court
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1389 of 2025----------Usha Mittal and Others Versus State of Uttarakhand & others-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:798
assumes seisin of the dispute relating to possession and grants an
injunction, the summary jurisdiction under Section 145 CrPC must
yield to the civil court's determination. According to the Applicants, the
Magistrate was duty-bound to respect the civil court's order and to treat
the property as custodia legis until final adjudication of the civil suit.
11. It was also urged on behalf of the Applicants that the order dated
23.11.2024 stands vitiated for gross violation of the principles of
natural justice, as it was passed without issuing any notice to or
affording any opportunity of hearing to the Applicants, despite the fact
that they were the undisputed legal heirs of Late Shri Subhash Chandra
Mittal and had already been substituted as parties in earlier proceedings
with the knowledge of the State and private respondents. Learned
counsel submitted that an order affecting possession and civil rights,
passed behind the back of the affected parties, is void ab initio.
12. Learned counsel for the Applicants further submitted that the
application filed by Respondent No. 4 and the order passed by the City
Magistrate are both dated 23.11.2024, reflecting undue and unseemly
haste, notwithstanding that the Magistrate had already been informed
by letter dated 04.10.2024 about the subsisting orders of this Court and
the civil court. It was argued that the subsequent breaking of seals and
taking over of physical possession on 24.11.2024, allegedly in the
presence of police personnel, was a direct fallout of the illegal order
and demonstrates a colourable exercise of power.
13. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2025 passed by the
learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, learned counsel for
the Applicants submitted that the revisional court failed to address the
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1389 of 2025----------Usha Mittal and Others Versus State of Uttarakhand & others-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:798
core jurisdictional issue, namely, whether any proceedings under
Sections 145/146 CrPC survived at all after having been rendered
infructuous by this Court. It was argued that the revisional court also
failed to examine the binding effect of the civil court injunction and the
admitted lack of notice and hearing to the Applicants, thereby rendering
the revisional judgment unsustainable.
14. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel appearing for the
private respondents submitted that the jurisdiction under Section 528 of
the BNSS is extraordinary and supervisory in nature and ought not to
be exercised as a substitute for a second revision. It was contended that
the City Magistrate acted within the scope of powers under Sections
145/146 CrPC to prevent breach of peace and that the mere pendency
of civil proceedings does not automatically oust the Magistrate's
jurisdiction. It was further argued that allegations regarding breaking of
seals, vandalism, or excess by police raise disputed questions of fact,
which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 528 of the
BNSS.
15. This Court upon due consideration at this juncture observes that the
controversy, though presented as a challenge to concurrent orders, in
essence raises a foundational jurisdictional question, namely, whether
the proceedings under Sections 145/146(1) CrPC, registered as Case
No. 19 of 2012, continued to subsist in law after this Court had
rendered them infructuous, and if not, whether the City Magistrate
could have exercised any further authority in respect thereof.
16. From the record, it is manifest that the proceedings under Sections
145/146(1) CrPC were initiated in the year 2012 and remained pending
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1389 of 2025----------Usha Mittal and Others Versus State of Uttarakhand & others-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:798
for a considerable period of time. During the interregnum, the dispute
between the parties travelled to the civil court, where Original Suit No.
217 of 2013 came to be instituted, and culminated in an interim
injunction order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Court of the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, directing maintenance of status quo
with respect to the subject property. The said injunction has admittedly
never been vacated, modified, or stayed and continues to operate till
date.
17. It is equally undisputed that this Court, while dealing with C482 No.
694 of 2013 arising out of the very same proceedings under Section
145 CrPC, repeatedly directed maintenance of status quo and,
ultimately, by order dated 24.09.2024, dismissed the said proceedings
as infructuous precisely on account of the subsisting civil court
injunction. The dismissal was not procedural or technical in nature but
was founded on the principle that once a competent civil court is seized
of the dispute relating to possession and has granted an injunction, the
summary jurisdiction under Section 145 CrPC must give way to the
civil court's adjudication.
18. In this backdrop, the submission of the Applicants that the proceedings
under Sections 145/146 CrPC had lost their legal efficacy cannot be
brushed aside. Once this Court itself declared the said proceedings
infructuous, the proceedings stood exhausted in law. This Court is
unable to accept the proposition that, notwithstanding such declaration,
the Magistrate could still exercise residual jurisdiction to pass an order
affecting possession. Jurisdiction under Section 145 CrPC is preventive
and summary in nature, and it cannot be exercised in a vacuum or after
the very proceedings have been rendered non est.
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1389 of 2025----------Usha Mittal and Others Versus State of Uttarakhand & others-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:798
19. The Court also finds substance in the contention that the civil court's
injunction dated 27.10.2017 had overriding primacy. It is a settled
position that proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are not intended to
supplant the jurisdiction of civil courts but only to prevent breach of
peace until the parties obtain appropriate relief from a competent
forum. Once the civil court had passed an injunction directing status
quo and had thereby assumed control over the question of possession,
the role of the Magistrate was limited to ensuring that such status quo
was not disturbed. Any order directing release of possession in favour
of one party, in the teeth of a subsisting civil injunction, amounts to an
impermissible encroachment upon the civil court's domain.
20. Equally troubling is the manner in which the order dated 23.11.2024
came to be passed. The record indicates that the Applicants were the
undisputed legal heirs of Late Shri Subhash Chandra Mittal and that
their substitution had already been recorded in earlier proceedings
before this Court with the knowledge and consent of the State as well
as the private respondents. Despite this, no notice was issued to the
Applicants, nor were they afforded any opportunity of hearing before
passing an order which directly affected possession of the property. An
order having serious civil consequences, passed without adherence to
the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained and is vitiated on
that ground alone.
21. The sequence of events further reinforces the Applicants' grievance.
Respondent No. 4's application seeking release of the sealed property
and the order of the City Magistrate are both dated 23.11.2024. This
assumes significance in light of the fact that the City Magistrate had
7
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1389 of 2025----------Usha Mittal and Others Versus State of Uttarakhand & others-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:798
already been apprised by the Applicants through a written
communication dated 04.10.2024 regarding the subsisting orders of this
Court and the civil court. The subsequent breaking of seals and taking
over of physical possession on the very next day, i.e., 24.11.2024,
allegedly in the presence of police personnel, appears to be a direct
consequence of the impugned order. While disputed questions relating
to vandalism or excess may lie beyond the immediate scope of the
present proceedings, the Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that such
consequences flowed from an order whose jurisdictional legitimacy
itself is under serious cloud.
22. Turning to the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2025 passed by the
learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, this Court finds that
the revisional court failed to engage with the core jurisdictional issue
raised before it. The revisional court did not examine whether any
proceedings under Sections 145/146 CrPC survived after they had been
rendered infructuous by this Court, nor did it examine the legal effect
of the subsisting civil court injunction. The revisional court also failed
to address the admitted position that the Applicants were not heard
prior to passing of the Magistrate's order. The omission to consider
these foundational aspects amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction
vested in the revisional court.
23. As regards the objection raised by the State and the private respondents
that the present petition amounts to a second revision in disguise, this
Court is unable to agree. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of
the BNSS is not being invoked to re-appreciate evidence or to
substitute factual findings, but to correct a manifest jurisdictional error
and a clear abuse of process, which strikes at the very root of the
8
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1389 of 2025----------Usha Mittal and Others Versus State of Uttarakhand & others-
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:798
proceedings. Where an order is shown to be without jurisdiction and in
derogation of binding judicial orders, the bar against a second revision
cannot operate as a shield.
ORDER
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the Criminal
Miscellaneous Application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed.
The order dated 23.11.2024 passed by the City Magistrate,
Dehradun in Case No. 19 of 2012 under Sections 145/146(1) CrPC and
the judgment and final order dated 09.07.2025 passed by the learned
First Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 65
of 2025 are hereby quashed and set aside.
The interim injunction/order of status quo dated 27.10.2017
passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in
Original Suit No. 217 of 2013 shall continue to operate and bind the
parties until varied or vacated by the competent civil court.
It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to
the legality of the impugned criminal proceedings and shall not affect
the merits of the pending civil suit.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Dated:11.02.2026
NR/
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1389 of 2025----------Usha Mittal and Others Versus State of Uttarakhand & others-
Ashish Naithani J.
