HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1655 of 2022 V.K. Singh ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vipul Painuly, A.G.A. for the State. None present for respondent no.2 despite sufficient service. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of this C-482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the judgment dated 03.09.2022 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No.289 of 2019, Rajesh Chawla vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar alleging the offence unhder Sections 323, 324, 383, 392, 504, 506, 120B, 147 and 148 IPC. So that, the learned Magistrate would direct lodging of FIR against the applicant and two other persons. The said complaint was rejected on 17.09.2019 in default of respondent no.2. Thereafter, respondent no.2 again filed a second complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the same court on same set of facts against the applicant and two persons which was again dismissed, but on merits vide order dated 01.11.2019. Feeling aggrieved by this order, respondent no.2 filed a revision under Sections 397 and 399 Cr.P.C. 2 in the court of Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar on 21.02.2019 who allowed it by the impugned order and directed the learned Magistrate to pass an appropriate order after rehearing the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the light of observation made in the revisional order. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that once the application was rejected by the Magistrate, second application on same set of facts was not maintainable. Therefore, the second complaint and the impugned revisional proceedings arising out of it is clear abuse of process of law. 4. The argument of the learned Senior Advocate is totally misconceived and the same is rejected outrightly for the reason that the first application/complaint filed by the respondent no.2 was not rejected on merit rather it was dismissed for default. There is no bar to bring second application/complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned Senior Advocate could not show any law in support of his arguments. 5. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that whole proceedings have been maliciously initiated against him and while serving as an Estate Officer in C.B. Pant University he has lawfully evicted the respondent no.2 from the premises of said university. 6. After hearing the submission of the parties and going through the records of the case, this Court is of the opinion that as the order passed by the learned Revisional 3 Court is nothing but a remand order and in it, learned Magistrate has only been directed to rehear the application on its own merits taking into consideration the observations made in the impugned judgment and order, it needs no interference. 7. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order in this C-482 application. 8. Accordingly, the present C-482 application is dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.04.2025 Ravi