Dinesh Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

This C-482 application preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing the judgment and the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.150 of 2020, Dinesh Sharma vs. State of Uttarakhand and others as well as the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Miscellaneous Case No.26 of 2020, Dinesh Sharma vs. Shiv Kumar and others, P.S. Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar.

Facts in nutshell are that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicant before the trial court raising therein the allegations of misappropriation and mismanagement of the subject property. It was also stated that the private respondents had got the order missing passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, it was stated that the applicant was threatened of his life and liberty at the hands of private respondents. The applicant tried to lodge the report at the Police Station, but since no action was taken. Hence, he moved the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, by its order dated 19.02.2020 has refused to accept the application moved by the applicant. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred a revision which was decided by learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar by its judgment dated 18.05.2022, whereby, the said revision was dismissed and the order passed by the trial court was affirmed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.

From perusal of the papers available in the file, it appears that the applicant alleged against the private respondents that they got constructed a private trust by forging the documents. It was also stated that the documents, from the file of execution court, were got missing by the respondents and the property was got vacated. It also appears that the proceedings of eviction were carried out pursuant to the order passed by the court in Execution Case No.13 of 2008.

In such view of the matter, the trial court reached to the conclusion that no cognizable offence, prima facie was held to be committed by the private respondents. Accordingly, it came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground to get the investigation of the case conducted from the police and thus, the application was rejected. Before Revisional Court also, the applicant could not produce any valid document in support of his case. The Revisional Court also observed that the applicant had no locus standi he was not impleaded as a plaintiff or legal heir in any civil proceedings nor did he pray for being arraigned as a party in any civil proceedings. The Revisional Court also observed that the entire proceeding was done in pursuance of the proceedings of the eviction case. Accordingly, it was held that the applicant had no locus standi to challenge the said order.

It also needs to be mentioned at this stage, the civil proceedings, as per submissions of the learned counsel for respondent no.2, have attained finality even up to the level of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate in his order and by the Revisional Court in its judgment and order are quite satisfactory and warrant no interference.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there are concurrent findings of fact against the applicant, and I find no good ground to interfere with the well reasoned impugned judgments and orders. The C482 application lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.