CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Amit Kumar Sharma & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 8 January 2024 · Citation: (2024) 01 UK CK 0153

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pankaj Purohit, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 319
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 942 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 324 words

Pankaj Purohit, J

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

By means of this C528 application, applicants have put to challenge the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital in

Criminal Revision No.02 of 2024, Rajendra Kumar Joshi vs. State of Uttarakhand & others (arising out of FIR No.17 of 2019 dated 29.05.2019, P.S.

Bhimtal, District Nainital) and the order dated 24.11.2023 in Criminal Case No.3264 of 2019, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Nainital.

3.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the revisional court while remanding the matter to the Magistrate effectively issued

directions to proceed against the applicants under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC leaving no scope for exercise of discretion. He further

contends that the revisional court has ignored the fact that the trial was proceeding only under Section 420 IPC and there can be no alteration of

charge on application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which only warrants summoning additional accused who can be tried together with accused.

4.

It is also contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the revisional court failed to appreciate that mere mention of name in the evidence is

not sufficient to warrant exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the degree of proof required is stronger than which is required for framing

of charges, since it will result in de novo trial.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire documents available on record including the judgments and orders

impugned.

6.

Since the order passed by the revisional court is a remand order, by which the matter is remanded back to the trial court, therefore, no interference

is required in this C528 application. Accordingly, the present C528 application is dismissed in-limine.

7.

It is expected from the learned trial court to apply its mind while passing the order.

8.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.