2025:UHC:2084 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 2121 of 2022 24 March, 2025 Harshpati Kotnala --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Lubhna Jahan, learned counsel for applicant. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuli and Ms. Sweta Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1. Mr. Rohit Kumar Gaur, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the impugned order dated 07.03.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Lansdown, District Pauri Garhwal, in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.1 of 2022 Harshpati Kotnala Vs. Bhupendra Bhardwaj, whereby, the application of applicant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was dismissed and order dated 15.06.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Revision No.07 of 2022 Harshpati Kotnala Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, whereby, the revision was dismissed and confirm the dismissal order dated 07.03.2022. 2025:UHC:2084 2 3. The facts in nutshell are that the applicant was running a shop of electrical equipments and vegetables at Rikhnikhal; due to a fracture on foot, he could not attend the shop for a few days; on returning he was astonished to find that respondent No.2 has stolen all his goods and has also demolished his shop. He approached the police authorities to lodge his complaint, but when they turned a blind eye, the applicant approach to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lansdown under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating therein all the offensive activity of the respondent No.2 with a prayer to lodge the first information report against respondent No.2. Thereafter, learned Magistrate after calling report from the concerned Thana passed the impugned order dated 07.03.2022 in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.1 of 2022, whereby, the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) has dismissed the application of the applicant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. with the finding that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature as the applicant is not the recorded owner of the shop and the land is belong to Government. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.03.2022, applicant approached to the Court of learned Session Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Revision No.07 of 2022. Learned Revisional Court has dismissed the criminal revision vide order dated 15.06.2022 and confirmed the dismissal order of the learned Magistrate on the very same ground. Hence, the applicant is before this Court challenging the impugned orders. 2025:UHC:2084 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted the learned Magistrate has wrongly come to the conclusion that there is a civil dispute however the applicant clearly stated that his goods were stolen from the shop after breaking the lock of the shop behind his back and prima-facie cognizable offence is made out against the respondent No.2 and further the respondent No.2 also threatened the applicant but the learned Court below has overlooked the facts and dismissed the application of applicant in a cursory manner. He further submits that both the Courts below erred in law by dismissing the complaint of the applicant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel relying on the counter affidavit stated that the police after due inquiry found out that neither such type of incident occurred nor the involvement of respondent No.2 was found as the shop in-question was of the respondent No.2, who has given the same to applicant on rent and the same shop was constructed over the land of Public Works Department (PWD). He further submitted that learned Courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders as the matter involved a civil dispute. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has stated on the basis of counter affidavit that each and every averments made by the applicant are misconceived, false and concocted facts. He also submits that the learned Courts below have rightly 2025:UHC:2084 4 passed the impugned orders. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record, this Court is of the view that the dispute is of civil nature and the Courts below have done no illegality in passing the impugned orders. This is not a case where this Court should interfere with. 8. Accordingly, the present C482 application is dismissed. However, the parties are at liberty to avail the remedies available under relevant private law. 9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.03.2025 PN