2025:UHC:10778 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r eport s, orders or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u res COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C-482 No. 514 of 2024 Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait h an i, J. Mr. N. S. Kanyal, learned A.G.A. for the State/Applicant. 2. Mr. Prem Kaushal, learned counsel for the Respondent no.1. 3. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved by the Applicant/State, seeking to set aside/modify the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Garhwal Mandal/7th Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 245 of 2022, titled as “Yogendra Saini vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr.”, whereby the Court while allowing the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has directed the Vigilance Establishment Sector, Dehradun to lodge an FIR against the Performa respondent and further prayed that all consequential release of the mules be stayed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file. 5. The proceedings before the learned Special Judge, Dehradun were instituted on a private complaint alleging misconduct on the part of two private individuals. The State was not a party to those proceedings. The order under challenge merely 2025:UHC:10778 records the satisfaction of the Court that the allegations warranted investigation and accordingly directs the competent agency to act on the application. 6. No material has been placed before this Court to show that the impugned order imposes any legal prejudice upon the State or affects any right vested in it. A direction to the investigating agency to act on information disclosing a cognizable offence is a statutory consequence flowing from the scheme of the Code. Such a direction, by itself, does not confer upon the State the character of an aggrieved party so as to maintain an application under Section 482 of the Code. 7. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is not intended to be employed at the instance of a person who is not directly affected by the order impugned. In the present case, the grievance, if any, pertains exclusively to the private persons against whom allegations were levelled. The State cannot, in the absence of demonstrated prejudice, seek to overturn an order passed on a private application under Section 156 sub-section 3 of the Code. 8. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Application does not lie at the instance of the State, which lacks the requisite locus standi to maintain a challenge of this nature. 9. Accordingly, the present Application under Section 482 of the Code is dismissed as not 2025:UHC:10778 maintainable. 10. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the allegations made in the complaint, which shall be examined independently by the court concerned in accordance with law. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 14.11.2025 Akash AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f48ef73518c148d140566 ab1e26f9cbe61d, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee49224c891823fc6a03346 28b21e516047ed4f22f7, cn=AKASH Date: 2025.12.05 11:57:12 +05'30'