[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

H. K. Baurai vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 3 January, 2026

2026:UHC:146

Judgment Reserved on: 03.12.2025
Judgment Pronounced on:03.01.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc.Application No.1082 of 2022

H. K. Baurai ......Applicant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others .....Respondents

With

Criminal Misc. Application No. 1485 of 2022

GAIL (India) Limited ......Applicant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others .....Respondents

With

Criminal Misc. Application No. 2119 of 2022

Rajbeer Singh ......Applicant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another .....Respondents

Presence:

Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned Senior Counsel (Additional Solicitor
General of India) assisted by Mr. Lalit Belwal, Ms. Neeti Rana, Mr.
Ashish Belwal, Mr. Kartik Seth, and Mr. Lakshmi Kant Srivastava,
learned counsel for the Applicant in C482 Nos.1485 of 2022, C482
No.1082 of 2022.

Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay Bisht,
learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Pavan Kumar Nath, learned counsel
for the Applicant in C482 No.2119 of 2022.

1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1082 of 2022 -----H. K. Baurai vs. State of Uttarakhand and others connected with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1485 of 2022 -----GAIL (India) Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand connected with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2119 of 2022 -----Rajbeer Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:146

Mr. S. S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr.
Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the Complainant appearing through
V.C.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present group of three applications under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure arises out of a common order dated 30.05.2022
passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 451 of 2020, titled Smt.
Poonam Nehra v. Rajbeer Singh and others

2. The controversy has its genesis in proceedings relating to acquisition of
rights of user in land for laying of a gas pipeline project undertaken by
GAIL (India) Limited, under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines
(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962.

3. Notifications under the Act of 1962 were issued, acquisition
proceedings were completed, and compensation was determined and
disbursed in accordance with the statutory mechanism. The
compensation proceedings culminated much prior to the initiation of
criminal proceedings, and no challenge was raised at the relevant time
before the competent authority under the Act.

4. Respondent No. 2 claimed herself to be a co tenure holder in respect of
the acquired land and alleged that compensation was disbursed
exclusively to Respondent No. 3, a co sharer, without granting her
proportionate share.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid grievance, Respondent No. 2 filed an
application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate,

2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1082 of 2022 -----H. K. Baurai vs. State of Uttarakhand and others connected with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1485 of 2022 -----GAIL (India) Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand connected with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2119 of 2022 -----Rajbeer Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:146

Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, alleging collusion between
officials of the acquiring authority and Respondent No. 3, and seeking
directions for registration of a criminal case.

6. The learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the application and the
material placed on record, rejected the prayer for registration of an FIR,
finding that the dispute essentially pertained to compensation and did
not disclose commission of any cognizable offence.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, Respondent No. 2 preferred Criminal
Revision No. 451 of 2020. By order dated 30.05.2022, the revisional
court allowed the revision, set aside the Magistrate's order, and directed
registration of a criminal case.

8. Consequent to the revisional order, three separate applications under
Section 482 CrPC came to be filed:

o C-482 No. 1082 of 2022 by one of the officers against whom
proceedings were sought to be initiated;
o C-482 No. 1485 of 2022 by GAIL (India) Limited, the acquiring
body;
o C-482 No. 2119 of 2022 by another individual co accused.
9. Interim protection was granted in all the three matters at different
stages, and the impugned revisional order dated 30.05.2022 remained
stayed during the pendency of the proceedings.

10. As the challenge in all the three applications is directed against
the same revisional order and arises from an identical factual matrix,
they were connected and heard together.

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted
that the impugned revisional order is a clear abuse of the criminal
process, inasmuch as it permits criminal prosecution to be used as a

3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1082 of 2022 -----H. K. Baurai vs. State of Uttarakhand and others connected with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1485 of 2022 -----GAIL (India) Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand connected with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2119 of 2022 -----Rajbeer Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:146

tool for reopening and re agitating a compensation dispute governed
entirely by a special statute.

12. It was argued that the Act of 1962 constitutes a complete code in
itself, providing for acquisition, determination of compensation,
apportionment, reference, and adjudication of disputes. Once the
statutory process has been completed, criminal law cannot be invoked
to bypass limitation or statutory remedies.

13. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations in the application
under Section 156(3) CrPC, even if taken at face value, do not disclose
the essential ingredients of any cognizable offence. The gravamen of
the allegations relates to entitlement to compensation, which is purely
civil and statutory in nature.

14. It was contended that the revisional court exceeded its
jurisdiction by substituting its own satisfaction for that of the
Magistrate and by directing registration of an FIR without recording
any finding as to the existence of a cognizable offence.

15. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the officials
against whom allegations have been levelled were discharging statutory
duties in good faith under the Act of 1962, which itself provides
protection to officers acting in pursuance of the statute.

16. It was urged that permitting criminal prosecution in such
circumstances would have a chilling effect on statutory authorities and
public officials, and would open floodgates for criminal litigation
arising out of compensation disputes.

17. Learned counsel also submitted that the revisional order fails to
consider the substantial delay in initiation of criminal proceedings, the
absence of any contemporaneous objection during compensation

4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1082 of 2022 -----H. K. Baurai vs. State of Uttarakhand and others connected with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1485 of 2022 -----GAIL (India) Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand connected with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2119 of 2022 -----Rajbeer Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:146

proceedings, and the settled principle that criminal law cannot be
employed as a pressure tactic.

18. Learned counsel appearing for the State and Respondent No. 2
supported the impugned revisional order and submitted that the
allegations disclose collusion and wrongful deprivation of
compensation, which warranted investigation by the police.

19. It was contended that the scope of inquiry at the stage of Section
156(3) CrPC is limited, and that the truthfulness or otherwise of the
allegations can be examined only after investigation.

20. Learned counsel submitted that the revisional court was justified
in directing registration of an FIR to ensure that the grievance of
Respondent No. 2 is duly examined by the investigating agency.

21. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

22. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the entire factual
foundation of the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated by
Respondent No. 2 emanates from a dispute relating to disbursement of
compensation pursuant to acquisition of rights of user in land under the
Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in
Land) Act, 1962. The acquisition proceedings, issuance of statutory
notifications, determination of compensation, and its disbursement are
not in dispute.

23. The Act of 1962 is a special enactment which provides a
complete and self-contained mechanism governing acquisition,
determination of compensation, apportionment, and adjudication of
disputes arising therefrom. The statute also prescribes the remedies
available to an aggrieved person and the forum before which such
remedies are to be pursued.

5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1082 of 2022 -----H. K. Baurai vs. State of Uttarakhand and others connected with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1485 of 2022 -----GAIL (India) Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand connected with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2119 of 2022 -----Rajbeer Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:146

24. A perusal of the application under Section 156(3) CrPC reveals
that the gravamen of the allegations is that Respondent No. 2, claiming
herself to be a co tenure holder, was not paid her alleged proportionate
share of compensation, which, according to her, was disbursed
exclusively to Respondent No. 3. The allegations of collusion are
founded entirely on this assertion.

25. Even if the allegations made in the application are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie
disclose the commission of any cognizable criminal offence. The
dispute essentially pertains to entitlement and apportionment of
compensation, which is a matter squarely falling within the domain of
civil and statutory adjudication.

26. It is well settled that criminal law cannot be invoked as a
substitute for civil remedies, nor can it be used as a tool to reopen or
revive disputes which are otherwise governed by a special statute
providing an exhaustive remedial framework. Permitting criminal
prosecution in such circumstances would amount to allowing the
criminal process to be used for purposes for which it is not intended.

27. The learned Magistrate, while rejecting the application under
Section 156(3) CrPC, had examined the nature of the allegations and
had correctly concluded that the dispute did not warrant registration of
a criminal case. The Magistrate exercised discretion vested in law after
applying judicial mind to the material before the court.

28. The revisional court, while setting aside the order of the
Magistrate, did not record any clear finding as to how the allegations
disclosed the ingredients of a cognizable offence. The revisional order
proceeds on a generalized premise that the matter requires

6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1082 of 2022 -----H. K. Baurai vs. State of Uttarakhand and others connected with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1485 of 2022 -----GAIL (India) Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand connected with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2119 of 2022 -----Rajbeer Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:146

investigation, without addressing the fundamental issue of whether
criminal law could at all be set in motion in the facts of the case.

29. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited. The revisional
court is required to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of the
order under challenge. It cannot mechanically direct registration of an
FIR unless it is satisfied that the refusal by the Magistrate suffers from
patent illegality or perversity. Such satisfaction is conspicuously absent
in the impugned order.

30. This Court also finds merit in the submission that the proceedings
under Section 156(3) CrPC were initiated after considerable delay, long
after the compensation proceedings had attained finality. No
contemporaneous objection appears to have been raised before the
competent authority under the Act of 1962 at the relevant time.

31. Allowing criminal prosecution to proceed in such a fact situation
would have the effect of unsettling completed statutory proceedings
and exposing public authorities and officials to criminal litigation for
acts performed in discharge of statutory duties. Such an approach
would have serious implications for the functioning of statutory bodies
and would be contrary to the settled principles governing exercise of
criminal jurisdiction.

32. The inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC exists
to prevent abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of
justice. Where the criminal process is sought to be invoked to give a
criminal colour to a dispute which is essentially civil or statutory in
nature, this Court would be failing in its duty if it does not intervene.

33. In the considered view of this Court, the impugned revisional
order dated 30.05.2022 suffers from a manifest error of jurisdiction and

7
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1082 of 2022 -----H. K. Baurai vs. State of Uttarakhand and others connected with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1485 of 2022 -----GAIL (India) Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand connected with
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2119 of 2022 -----Rajbeer Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand

Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:146

results in abuse of the criminal process. Continuation of proceedings
pursuant thereto would not serve the ends of justice.

ORDER

The Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1485 of 2022, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1082 of 2022, and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2119 of 2022 are allowed.

The impugned order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 451 of 2020, titled Smt. Poonam Nehra v. Rajbeer Singh and others, is hereby quashed.

Consequently, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate rejecting the application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stands restored.

All proceedings sought to be initiated pursuant to the impugned revisional order dated 30.05.2022 shall stand terminated.

(Ashish Naithani J.)

Dated:03.01.2026 NR/

Criminal Misc. Application No. 1082 of 2022 -----H. K. Baurai vs. State of Uttarakhand and others connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 1485 of 2022 -----GAIL (India) Limited vs. State of Uttarakhand connected with Criminal Misc. Application No. 2119 of 2022 -----Rajbeer Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand

Ashish Naithani J.