2025:UHC:5681 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 2241 of 2023 03 July, 2025 Smt. Harleen Kaur --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Mohit Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned D.A.G. with Mr. Vikas Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, 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 judgment and order dated 03.09.2022 passed by learned Second Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. Case No.102 of 2022 Smt. Harleen Kaur Vs. Santosh Narang, filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 17.08.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Criminal Revision No.277 of 2022 Smt. Harleen Kaur Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, whereby, the said revision was dismissed by affirming the judgment and order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the learned Magistrate. 1 2025:UHC:5681 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent No.2 had committed maarpeet after drinking alcohol with applicant and there are several injuries caused by sword and the respondent No.2 was attacked on her head with the butt of sword with the intention to kill, which caused a contusion in her head. He further submits that the respondent No.2 had withdrawn the cash from the applicant’s bank account forging her signature. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that the respondent No.2 had never appeared before this Court with his son, as and when called by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, this clearly reveals that the respondent No.2 is deliberately floating the order of this Court. The applicant was appearing before this Court regularly and since one and a half year, she has not seen her child. The conduct of respondent No.2 appears to be contemptuous in nature. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent No.2 is a practicing advocate of the Court situated at Rudrapur and his conduct is proved from the facts that various litigants filed complaints against him regarding his misconduct towards his clients, this fact is also evident from the fact that the learned District Judge has also recommend the said matter to the Bar Association Rudrapur and Bar Council, Uttarakahnd, and he is a habitual offender, but this aspect of the matter has not been considered by both the Courts below, while passing the impugned 2 2025:UHC:5681 orders. 6. It is further contended by him that learned Courts below have failed to consider the fact that in her complaint, the applicant has produced each and every document, which clearly prima-facie proved the offence against the respondent No.2, but both the learned Courts below wrongly interpreted the documentary evidence, which were placed by the applicant before the Courts below. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contends that the son of respondent No.2 was suffering from severe fever, cold and cough, therefore, the respondent No.2 could not appeared with his son before this Court. Medical report of his son also annexed as Annexure No.1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by him. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that no cognizable offence is made out against the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 neither had committed any incident alleged by the applicant nor had withdrawn any money from the applicant’s bank by making forged signature of the applicant. He further submits that the learned Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments and orders. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgments and orders and entire material available on record, this Court is of the view that the learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any 3 2025:UHC:5681 material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below. The reasoning given by both the learned Courts below is perfect and sound and there is hardly any scope to interfere in the aforesaid judgments and orders. 10. As a result, the application moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.07.2025 PN 4 PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe 38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE8 1FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D9 59AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.07.04 16:22:37 +05'30'