2025:UHC:2267 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No.98 of 2023 27th March, 2025 Nadan Singh Phartiyal ………….Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Vinay Bhatt, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. G.C. Joshi, A.G.A. for the State ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Present C482 application has been filed by the applicants for quashing/setting aside the order dated 06.12.2021, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Ist Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.1342 of 2021, (New No.1811 of 2022), pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.) Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar and further to quash order dated 04.01.2023, passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No.51 of 2022. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that applicant and respondent no.2 got married about 35 years ago. After a lapse of time, behavior of respondent no.2 towards the applicant got changed and she started living separately from him and she was leveling false charges against the applicant on the ground of bigamy. Thereafter on the direction of Panchayat, which took place in the year 2013, the applicant executed a registered gift deed in favour of respondent no.2. After delivering possession of the land, respondent no.2 moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the court of learned Additional Chief 2025:UHC:2267 2 Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. On 06.12.2021 the learned Ist Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar summoned the applicant under Sections 494, 323 and 504 IPC. Against the said order, applicant preferred a Criminal Revision No.51 of 2022 whereby the learned IIIrd District and Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar rejected the said revision vide order dated 04.01.2023. Hence the applicant aggrieved by the aforesaid orders is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a senior citizen, aged about 66 years of age and it is not unlikely of him to go to Kichha and to do anything wrong on his part. He further submits that both the court below failed to consider that the provisions of Section 494 IPC are not attracted in the instant case. Furthermore, no such occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. took place. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that there are serious allegations against the applicant and, prima facie, commission of offence is made out against him. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, I find no irregularity or illegality with the orders passed by the courts below. There are concurrent findings of fact against the applicant. No interference is required in the sound reasoning given by trial court as well as revisional court. 6. Accordingly, the C482 application fails and is dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 27.03.2025 SK