2025:UHC:41 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application No. 1051 of 2024 03 January, 2025 Sitanshu Kaul --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Harshit Sanwal, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Brief Holder for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this C528 application, applicant has put to challenge the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Revision No.02 of 2024, Rajendra Kumar Joshi vs. State of Uttarakhand & others (arising out of FIR No.17 of 2019 dated 29.05.2019, P.S. Bhimtal, District Nainital) and confirm the order dated 24.11.2023 in Criminal Case No.3264 of 2019, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the revisional court while remanding the matter to the Magistrate effectively issued directions to proceed against the applicant under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC leaving no scope for exercise of discretion. He further contends that the revisional court has ignored the fact that the trial was proceeding only under Section 420 IPC and there cannot be alteration of charge on application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which 1 2025:UHC:41 only warrants summoning additional accused who can be tried together with accused. 4. It is also contended by learned counsel for the applicant revisional court has not appreciated that mere mention of name in the evidence is not sufficient to warrant exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the degree of proof required is stronger than which is required for framing of charges, since it will result in de novo trial. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the entire documents available on record. 6. Since the order passed by the revisional court is a remand order, by which the matter is remanded back to the trial court, therefore, no interference is required in this C528 application. Accordingly, the present C528 application is dismissed in-limine. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.01.2025 AK 2