IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 286 of 2017 (Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) 30th July, 2025 Rakesh Kumar Gupta …….Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Others …..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Lata Negi, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. B.N. Maulakhi, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel (through V.C.) for respondent nos. 2 to 7. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2016 passed by learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 179 of 2015 ‘Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Uttarakhand’ and also the order dated 16.10.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Misc. Case No. 132 of 2014, ‘Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Jawahar Lal Singh and Others.’ 2. Brief Facts of the case, as per record are that the applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging that he had paid ₹1,12,00,000/- as an advance for purchase of a 1 property from respondent no. 2, which was subsequently sold to a third parties and it was later discovered that the applicants were not the owners of that property. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. vide a detailed and reasoned order dated 16.10.2014, 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. 179 of 2015 was filed, which too was dismissed by the court of learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Haridwar vide order dated 09.02.2016. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present C-482 application before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that Section 156(3) and 190 of Cr.P.C. confers the power to the Magistrate to take the cognizance or to direct for the investigation, but, the Magistrate out rightly rejected the application of the applicant on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature. 4. To support her contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409. Paragraph 27 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:- “27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate 2 has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC.” 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 7 would submit that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar has rightly rejected the application moved by the applicant under Section 156(3), by a detailed and reasoned order dated 16.10.2014, as the dispute was essentially civil in nature and the revision filed against this order was also dismissed by the court of learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Haridwar vide order dated 09.02.2016. 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 application of the applicant filed under Section 156(3) was dismissed by the learned ACJM, Haridwar on the ground that the dispute is essentially civil in nature. The order of ACJM, Haridwar dated 16.10.2014 was a reasoned and speaking one, and against the said order, the revision was also filed, which too was dismissed by the court of learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, 3 Haridwar vide order dated 09.02.2016. 8. 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 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. 9. In this case, perusal of the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate reveals that she has considered and discussed all relevant aspects. Thus, the view taken by the learned Magistrate, cannot be faulted. Learned Revisional Court was thus justified in dismissing the Revision Petition. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 10. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application fails and is hereby dismissed. (ALOK MAHRA, J.) 30.07.2025 Ujjwal 4