2025:UHC:3869 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 721 of 2014 14 May, 2025 Mahmood Akhtar --Applicant Versus Mohammad Umar Beg & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Mohd. Shafy, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Aditya Kumar Arya, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Ms. Khushboo Tiwari Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of present C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the order dated 30.05.2013, passed by learned City Magistrate, Dehradun in Case No.03 of 2011, whereby the application for impleadment of ‘Umar Beg”, a party to the proceedings has been allowed; as well as the judgment and order dated 24.05.2014, passed by learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No.104 of 2013, Mahmood Akhtar vs. Umar Beg & others, whereby the revision petition filed by the applicant has been rejected and the order dated 30.05.2013 passed by learned City Magistrate was affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by learned trial court as well as by revisional court is bad in law as Mr. Umar Beg has no locus 1 2025:UHC:3869 in the matter and he has wrongly been impleaded as party in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Umar Beg is the grandson of the original land tenure holder, therefore, he has rightly been directed to be impleaded as party-respondent in the proceedings. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court, I find favour with the reasoning assigned by the courts below. The revision-petition has rightly been rejected and the order passed by learned Magistrate has rightly been upheld. There is no illegality in reasoning assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 10 & 11 of the impugned judgment and order passed in criminal revision. Thus, there is no point in keeping this matter pending so long. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. application fails and is hereby dismissed. 6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 14.05.2025 AK 2