Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 266 (UTT)

SURESH CHANDRA TIWARI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-04-28

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks quashing of the observation / finding of the revisional court with respect to paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the impugned judgment and order dated 04.06.2015. 2. Respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against his real brother (applicant herein). The same was dismissed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, vide order dated 01.07.2014. Aggrieved against the same, respondent no. 2 filed a criminal revision, which too was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital, vide order dated 04.06.2015. 3. In present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the findings of two courts below have not been assailed, only the observations made in para 6 of the judgment dated 04.06.2015, passed by the revision court, have been put to challenge. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has taken an exception only to the observations made by learned revision court in para 6 of the judgment, whereby a direction was given to Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital to decide the application of Lalit Mohan Tiwari (respondent no. 2 herein), in a particular way. 5. It is pointed out by learned Senior counsel for the applicant that the dispute for which observations have been made by learned revision court in para 6 of the judgment dated 04.06.2015 was never the dispute before the court and, therefore, a direction be given to Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital that the said observations in para 6 of the criminal revision are not binding upon them and they are merely passing references. 6. Innocuous prayer made by learned Senior counsel for the applicant is worth accepting in the background of the fact that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant, which was dismissed and against which a criminal revision was moved. The primary object of filing the criminal revision was to direct the Magistrate to lodge an FIR against the accused under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC. The said prayer of the complainant was not accepted either by the trial court or by the revision court and, therefore, learned court below had no occasion to direct anybody to move application before Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital and issue a direction to the Nagar Palika Parishad to decide that application in a particular manner. 7. The said prayer of the complainant was not accepted either by the trial court or by the revision court and, therefore, learned court below had no occasion to direct anybody to move application before Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital and issue a direction to the Nagar Palika Parishad to decide that application in a particular manner. 7. Writ petition is disposed of by making it clear that the observations made in para 6 of the judgment dated 04.06.2015 are not binding upon Nagar Palika Parishad. They are merely in the form of passing references. Nagar Palika Parishad may like to proceed with the matter in its own way, but in accordance with law.