Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 34 (UTT)

BHARAT SINGH NEGI v. NARENDRA SINGH

2015-01-15

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral) Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar. Aggrieved against the same, the complainant (applicant herein) filed a criminal revision, which was also dismissed vide order dated 19.05.2014. Still aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant. 2.The applicant, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the cognizance order dated 13.08.2013, passed by Addl. C.J.M., Kotdwar, in criminal case no. 66 of 2013, as also the order dated 19.05.2014, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, in criminal revision no. 36 of 2013. A prayer has also been made that present application be allowed and Station House Officer, police station, Kotdwar be directed to lodge FIR against respondent nos. 1 to 6. 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has confined his prayer only to the extent that the applicant be permitted to file a criminal complaint case against the respondents, as per law, without being prejudiced with the observations made either by the trial court or the revisional court in their respective judgments. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and having gone through the impugned orders, as well as the documents brought on record, such innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is allowed. 5. Application under Section 484 of Cr.P.C. is disposed of with the liberty to the applicant to file a criminal complaint case against the accused-respondents in the court having jurisdiction, according to law. It is provided that if such a criminal complaint is filed before the court concerned, said court shall proceed with the same without being prejudiced by the observations made either by the trial court or by the revisional court in their respective judgments. All pending applications also stand disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not said anything on the merits of the case.