2025:UHC:730 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 179 of 2019 11 February, 2025 Mahendra Singh and another --Applicants Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1. Mr. Vijay Chauhan, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present C482 application, the applicants have put to challenge the impugned summoning order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Haridwar in Criminal Complaint Case No.692 of 2015, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., registered with Police Station Pathari, District Haridwar and impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2019 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.258 of 2017, Mahendra Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another. 3. The facts in nutshell are that respondent No.2 has filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Haridwar, in furtherance of which, learned Judicial 2025:UHC:730 2 Magistrate treating it as a complaint, summoned the applicants and after due process, passed impugned summoning order dated 18.11.2016. Against which, the applicants filed a Criminal Revision No.258 of 2017 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar who transferred it to learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. Thereafter, learned Third Additional Judge, Haridwar has dismissed the said revision vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2019 and affirmed the impugned summoning order dated 18.11.2016. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the aforementioned proceeding was a sham proceeding and was a counterblast and cross proceeding to the FIR lodged by the present applicants against the respondent No.2. He further submitted that the respondent No.2 uprooted the boundary marks separating the land of the applicants and also physically assaulted the applicant No.2, which is evident from the medical reports and the charge-sheet submitted by the police. 5. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicants that both the Courts below committed grave error of law, by not rejecting the complaint filed by the respondent No.2. In spite of the fact that the police officer in his report clearly submitted that the application filed under Section 156(3) is a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the applicants. He also contends that it is a settled proposition of law that at the stage of summoning the accused on a private complaint, the satisfaction 2025:UHC:730 3 of the Magistrate is required that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the light of the records made available and evidence adduced by the complainant, which was clearly missing in this case. Moreover, he further submits that the learned Revisional court also failed to discharge its legal duty and committed illegality in dismissing the revision filed by the applicants. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the basis of his counter affidavit stated that the learned Judicial Magistrate after application of judicial mind had passed the summoning order relying on the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and learned Revisional Court also passed the order after perusing the statements and did not find any illegality or perversity in the summoning order. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants on the basis of his rejoinder affidavit stated that since respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. against the applicants, in counterblast to the FIR lodged by the applicant No.2, bearing FIR No.46 of 2015 under Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC, in which the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet and the respondent No.2 is facing trial in the Criminal Case No.1016 of 2015 State Vs. Udayveer Singh, which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Haridwar, but, the learned Magistrate while summoning the applicants did not consider this aspect of matter, therefore, impugned summoning order dated 18.11.2016 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 2025:UHC:730 4 8. Learned State Counsel has also submitted that this is the case of cross-FIR. Moreso, when already the court below has dismissed the revision of the applicants after examining the issue, the present C482 application also deserves to be dismissed. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record, this Court is of the view that the learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below. Resultantly, the present C482 application is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. 10. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.02.2025 PN