[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
C528/514/2025 on 25 March, 2026
2026:UHC:2187
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C528/514/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the
applicants.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A.
along with Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for
respondent no.2.
4. Present C-528 application has been
filed seeking quashing/set aside of the
impugned judgment and order dated
17.03.2025 passed by the learned 1st
Additional District Judge, Dehradun in
Criminal Revision No. 294 of 2024, whereby
the learned revisional court set aside the
order dated 08.10.2024 to the extent that
the learned trial court had declined to
summon the present applicants for the
offence punishable under Section 500
I.P.C., and remanded the matter to the
Magistrate for passing a fresh order.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants
would submit that respondent no.2 had
filed a complaint case against the applicants
under Sections 500, 120-B and 34 I.P.C.,
alleging that the applicants had attempted
to defame him by circulating a forged and
defamatory image on social media platforms
and by making defamatory statements in
public domain. It is submitted that the said
complaint was initially dismissed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
(Senior Division), Dehradun vide order
dated 20.10.2023, holding that the
2026:UHC:2187
complainant had failed to establish that his
reputation had been lowered in the
estimation of society or that the alleged
publication had caused any damage to his
social standing.
6. Being aggrieved, respondent no.2
preferred Criminal Revision No. 254 of
2023, which was allowed by the learned
revisional court vide order dated
19.07.2024, whereby the order dated
20.10.2023 was set aside and the matter
was remanded to the trial court with a
direction to reconsider the complaint afresh
in the light of the observations made in the
said order.
7. It is further submitted that, in
compliance of the aforesaid revisional order,
the learned trial court reconsidered the
complaint and passed an order dated
08.10.2024, whereby the son of applicant
no.2 and another person were summoned
under Section 500 I.P.C., but the learned
Magistrate declined to summon the present
applicants, finding no sufficient material
against them.
8. He would further submit that against
the said order dated 08.10.2024,
respondent no.2 preferred Criminal Revision
No. 294 of 2024, which was allowed by the
learned 1st Additional District Judge,
Dehradun vide the impugned judgment and
order dated 17.03.2025, whereby the order
dated 08.10.2024 was set aside to the
extent it refused to summon the present
applicants, and the matter was remanded to
the Magistrate with a direction to pass a
fresh order after considering the
observations made in the earlier revisional
order as well as the present order.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants
2026:UHC:2187
further submits that the allegations made in
the complaint are wholly false and have
been levelled only with the intention of
exerting pressure upon the applicants. It is
argued that even if the entire allegations
made in the complaint are accepted as true,
no offence under Sections 499 and 500
I.P.C. is made out, as there is no material to
show that the applicants had published any
defamatory statement against respondent
no.2 in a public domain or that the
ingredients of the offence of defamation are
satisfied. Therefore, it is contended that the
impugned order passed by the revisional
court is legally unsustainable and liable to
be quashed.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing
for respondent no.2 submits that
respondent no.2 is holding a responsible
position in society and the applicants along
with their family members have deliberately
attempted to tarnish his reputation by
circulating defamatory material. It is further
submitted that the impugned order is
merely a remand order, whereby the learned
revisional court has directed the Magistrate
to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh
order in accordance with the observations
made in the earlier revisional order as well
as in the impugned order. It is, therefore,
contended that no prejudice has been
caused to the applicants at this stage and
the present application is premature and
not maintainable.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
12. A perusal of the impugned order
reveals that the learned revisional court has
not recorded any final finding regarding the
culpability of the applicants. The revisional
2026:UHC:2187
court has merely observed that the matter
requires reconsideration by the learned
Magistrate in the light of the observations
made in the earlier revisional order dated
19.07.2024, and accordingly the matter has
been remanded to the trial court for passing
a fresh order in accordance with law.
13. It is well settled that the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only
in cases where there is a clear abuse of the
process of the court or where interference is
necessary to secure the ends of justice. In
the present case, the impugned order
passed by the revisional court is only a
remand order, directing the Magistrate to
reconsider the matter and pass a fresh
order. No final adjudication has been made
against the applicants at this stage.
14. In such circumstances, this Court
does not find any illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional error in the impugned order
which may warrant interference in exercise
of inherent jurisdiction.
15. Consequently, the present C-528
application is dismissed.
16. However, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the learned trial
court is directed to decide the complaint
case expeditiously, preferably within a
period of three months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order,
strictly in accordance with law.
17. No order as to costs.
MAMT Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
A
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e
584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebb
d642671329b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabf
RANI
d54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a1
91648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA
RANI
Date: 2026.03.31 10:44:02 +05'30'
(Alok Mahra, J.)
25.03.2026
Mamta
2026:UHC:2187
