[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Brahmcharini Samparpita And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 10 January, 2026

                                                                               2026:UHC:509
                                        Judgment Reserved on: 02.01.2026
                                        Judgment Delivered on:10.01.2026
           HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY

CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C482) NO.1150 OF 2015

Brahmcharini Samparpita and Others                                        ...Applicants.

                                          Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Another                                  ...Respondents.
Counsel for the petitioner          :      Mr. Brahmchari Sudhanand, learned
                                           counsel for the applicants through V.C.
Counsel for the respondents         :      Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy
                                           Advocate General for the State of
                                           Uttarakhand.




JUDGMENT:

(per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and

learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of

Uttarakhand.

2. This C482 application has been filed with the

following prayers:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash charge sheet dated 19-12- 2013 and the impugned cognizance order dated 08-07-2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Srinagar Garhwal in Misc. case no. 47 of 2014 'State V/s Hemant Dhyani and others' U/s 147, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Misc. case no. 47 of 2014 'State V/s Hemant Dhyani and others' pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in any manner."

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that

applicant no.1 and 2 are sadhvis (spiritual seeker) residing in

an ashram near Ganga and are well known peace loving

2026:UHC:509 citizens. They have been actively participating in the

campaigns of save environment and save Ganga in last few

years; that, applicant no.3 and 4 are the research scholars in

Delhi; that, on 13.05.2013 on the auspicious day of Akshay

Triteeya, applicants were performing puja at the Dhari Devi

Temple when a group of anti-social elements shouting slogans

in an aggressive manner gathered outside the temple and tried

to enter the temple and instead of stopping these persons the

police authorities asked the applicants to leave the temple;

that, FIR was lodged by Shri Hemant Dhayni (in which

applicants were witness); on 13.05.2013 at 15:45 against

respondent no.2 and other persons which was registered as

Case Crime No.18/2013; that, FIR was also lodged by Dr.

Bharat Jhunjhunwala against respondent no.2 and others

persons on 22.06.2012; though with regard to some other

incident as the respondent no.2 and other persons were acting

on behalf of GVK company; that, as a counterblast to the FIR

lodged by Shri Hemant Dhyani (in which the applicants are

witness), respondent no.2 also lodged FIR against Shri Hemant

Dhyani and other persons on 13.05.2013 at 17:40 hrs which

was registered as Case Crime No.19 of 2013; that, the learned

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Srinagar took cognizance vide

order dated 08.07.2014 against the applicants and the

applicants have challenged the said cognizance order and the

entire proceedings in the present C482 Application.

2026:UHC:509

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the

summoning order is a cryptic order wherein no reasons have

been assigned nor any prima facie opinion has been made for

summoning the applicants.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits

that the present case is a case of counter blast as the FIR

against respondent no.2 has been lodged prior in time by Shri

Hemant Dhyani and the applicants have been implicated as

they stood witness to the said incident.

6. He submits that against respondent no.2 also a

charge-sheet was filed under Sections 147,323,504 and 506

IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and the cognizance order was

passed against respondent no.2 in Case Crime No.18 of 2013.

7. He further submits that in Criminal Case

No.46/2014, 'State Vs. Ravindra Silwal' learned Judicial

Magistrate 1st Class Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal dealt with

the entire incident in detail and also observed that for the

same incident a case is also registered against the applicants.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that due

to the faulty investigation, respondent no.2 and the other

accused were acquitted and the State has not filed any appeal

against the said order passed on 14.11.2019 and as such the

said order has attained finality.

9. Learned State Counsel, on written instructions,

submits that no appeal against order dated 14.11.2019 has

2026:UHC:509 been filed by the State and he also fairly concedes that the

same incident which occurred on 13.05.2013 has been the

subject matter of the said criminal case which has been

discussed in detail by the learned Magistrate in its order dated

14.11.2019.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

11. Perusal of the record reveals that the incident of

13.05.2013 was also the subject matter of case no.46 of 2014

which has been decided on 14.11.2019. The said incident has

been dealt with in detail by the learned Magistrate and it has

been held that two FIRs for the same incident were filed one

by Shri Hemant Dhyani (in which the applicants are the

witness) and the second by respondent no.2.

12. The investigation for the said incident was carried

out in which cognizance order has been passed against the

applicants under Sections 147, 504, 506 of IPC and against

respondent no.2 and other persons under Sections 147, 323,

504 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

13. After discussing the entire incidence in detail, the

learned Judicial Magistrate came to a conclusion that the

investigation was faulty and the electronic evidence was not

correctly collected. The operative portion of the order dated

14.11.2019 reads as under:-

"nks"keqfä dk çeq[k dkj.k foospd ds }kjk vius foospuk ds eq[; drZO; dk ikyu

2026:UHC:509 u djuk ftl dkj.k orZeku ekeys ds pqVsy thåMhå vxzoky ,oa lk{kh vuqt tks'kh o ,lå,påvkså vfuy tks'kh dks vkjksi i= esa xokg ugha cuk;k x;k gS vkSj u gh thåMhå vxzoky dk esfMdy ijh{k.k djk;k x;k gSA foospd ds }kjk foospuk ds nkSjku bysDVª‚fud lk{; dk ladyu Hkh ugha fd;k x;k gS] ftls oknh eqdnek ds }kjk nkSjkus fopkj.k nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS tks fd /kkjk 65ch Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e ds vuqikyu esa u gksus ds dkj.k lk{; esa iBuh; ugha gSA ;fn mä bysDVª‚fud lk{; dk ladyu foospd }kjk fd;k tkrk rks fu%lansg :i ls bl çdkj dh =qfV ugha gksrhA iapd }kjk vfHk;qäx.kksa dh f'kuk[r ds lEca/k esa leqfpr çfØ;k ugha viuk;k tkuk gSA"

14. The said order dated 14.11.2019 has attained

finality. In the considered view of the Court, subjecting the

applicants to face trial for the same incident which has been

investigated in which respondent no.2 and other persons have

been acquitted, on account of faulty investigation, would

amount to abuse of process of law. Even otherwise on reading

of the FIR and the cognizance order, no ingredients under

Section 147, 504 and 506 IPC are made out against the

applicants.

15. In view of the above discussion, the Criminal Misc.

Application under C482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned

charge-sheet dated 19.12.2013, cognizance order dated