2025:UHC:6604 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 1795 of 2016 (Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) 25th July, 2025 Sanjay Chettri and another …….Applicants Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another …..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. B.N. Maulakhi and Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (as the criminal procedure than was) has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the Charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order dated 09.03.2016 under Sections 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C. passed in Criminal Case No. 913 of 2016 ‘State Vs. Sanjay Chetri & Another’ pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case. 2. Brief Facts of the case, as per record are that respondent no.2 initially filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging that he had paid ₹10,00,000/- as an advance for purchase of a 2025:UHC:6604 2 property from the applicants, which was subsequently sold to a third party. It is also alleged that a cheque issued by applicant no.1 was dishonoured by the bank. Later, a second agreement for another property was executed for a sale consideration of ₹33,00,000/-, of which ₹17,50,000/- was paid by respondent no.2. It was later discovered that the applicants were not the owners of that property either. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide a detailed and reasoned order dated 28.05.2015, holding that the dispute was civil in nature and did not disclose a cognizable offence. A revision against the said order being Criminal Revision No. 147 of 2015 was filed, which is still pending consideration in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun. Despite the pending revision, respondent no.2 proceeded to lodge an F.I.R. on 22.08.2015 against the applicants on the same set of facts. The applicants challenged the FIR by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 1092 of 2015 and obtained interim protection. However, the writ petition was later withdrawn on 13.10.2015. Subsequently, after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed by the concerned Investigating Officer under Sections 420, 504, and 506 IPC, on which cognizance was taken by learned trial court vide order dated 09.03.2016. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants would 2025:UHC:6604 3 submit that the institution of a subsequent FIR and continuation of criminal proceedings on the same set of facts, after dismissal of a 156(3) application, amounts to abuse of process of law. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in Lt. Colonel (Retd.) Balraj Singh Lamba & Another vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another, Criminal Revision No. 201 of 2013, decided on 23.12.2022, wherein it was held that once an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been adjudicated on merits, a second FIR on the same facts is not permissible. The said decision was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing SLP (Criminal) No. 5090 of 2023. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 would submit that the FIR was lodged based on an order from the District Magistrate and upon recommendation of the Commanding Officer of respondent no.2. He contends that the acts of the applicants amount to criminal cheating and that multiple similar criminal cases are also pending against them. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the present criminal proceedings are based on the same facts for which the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had earlier been dismissed. He further submits that lodging an FIR on the same facts by respondent no.2 amounts to double jeopardy, which is impermissible in law. He places reliance on Section 2025:UHC:6604 4 300(1) of the Cr.P.C., which states: "Section 300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence. (1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub- section (2) thereof.” 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the FIR as well as the summoning order are based on the same allegations that formed the basis of the earlier application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the dispute is essentially civil in nature. The order dated 28.05.2015 was a reasoned and speaking one, therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings, despite a judicial finding that no cognizable offence is made out, would amount to abuse of the process of law. 9. It is a settled principle of law that once a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been considered and dismissed on merits, a fresh FIR based on the same allegations cannot be entertained. Reference may also be made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court's observations in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287, wherein the Apex Court emphasized that once a 2025:UHC:6604 5 Magistrate applies his mind and passes a judicial order under Section 156(3), the matter cannot be re-agitated through a subsequent FIR on identical facts. 10. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. 11. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The summoning/cognizance order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 913 of 2016, as well as the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua the applicants. 12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ALOK MAHRA, J.) 25.07.2025 Mamta