Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 101 (UTT)

Vivek Swaroop v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-02-21

PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : PANKAJ PUROHIT, J. 1. This C482 application is moved by the applicant, who is the complainant/informant in a criminal case, the trial of which is pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-1st, Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Case No. 2607 of 2014, State vs. Jyoti Singh and Others under Sections 420, 504, 506 & 389 of IPC, against the order dated 18.01.2024, passed by Judicial Magistrate-1st, Haldwani, District Nainital, whereby the application dated 17.01.2024 moved by the applicant under Section 311 IPC has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that on the first information report of the applicant, the accused-persons are being tried in the trial for the offences mentioned hereinabove. During the course of trial, applications have been moved from the side of the respondents-accused persons, whereby an adjournment was sought by the respondents-accused persons on the ground that there was possibility of compromise between the parties. These applications are part of the record as annexure-1 collectively. 4. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that subsequently, no compromise was entered into between the parties and now, the applicant-informant by moving an application under Section 311 IPC wants to examine the respondents-accused persons with regard to the applications moved by them, during the course of trial, in which the chances of compromise were mentioned by them. The said application did not find favour and the Judicial Magistrate by reasoned order dated 18.01.2024 rejected the said application. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by Judicial Magistrate dated 18.01.2024, the applicant-informant moved a Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2024, Vivek Swaroop vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, but the said revision-petition met with the same fate and the revision was rejected on 05.02.2024, wherein it has been held that the order impugned in the revision-petition is interlocutory order against which no revision lies and thus needs no interference. Now, the applicant is before this Court challenging both the orders. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgments and orders passed by trial court as well as the revisional court. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the judgments and orders impugned, therefore, these orders need not to be interfered with. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgments and orders passed by trial court as well as the revisional court. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the judgments and orders impugned, therefore, these orders need not to be interfered with. In the opinion of this Court, respondents-accused persons cannot be forced to give evidence against their own interest under the law. 6. In this view of the matter, there is no force in the C482 application and the same is accordingly dismissed.