2025:UHC:5354 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482/753/2016 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. This petition under Section C-482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant/accused to quash the impugned order dated 12.08.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Haridwar in Misc. Application No. 44 of 2014, whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant was dismissed as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 18.06.2016 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 441 of 2014. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that respondent no.2 entered into an agreement to sell land and took ₹8,00,000 from the applicant, when construction began, the applicant was stopped by actual owners of the land-in-question, thereafter, the money was returned by respondent no.2. The applicant then filed a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., claiming she was cheated by respondent no.2. The concerned Magistrate dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed criminal revision, the revisional court upheld that dismissal. The applicant then approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash both orders. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the revisional court without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material available on record, passed the impugned order in a cursory and mechanical manner. The respondent no.2 entered into an agreement to sell a piece of land with the applicant which did not belong to him, therefore, the impugned order is 2025:UHC:5354 liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that both courts below, after evaluating the facts and evidence of the case by reasoned and speaking orders dismissing the complaint as well as the revision filed by the applicant. 7. Heard and perused the record in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is well-established that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and not for the purpose of re-assessing evidence or re-evaluating decisions, except in cases of clear abuse of process, perversity or gross injustice. 9. Upon examination of the impugned orders, it is clear that both the trial court and the revisional court have delivered reasoned judgments after careful consideration of the evidence and materials on record. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds no merit in the present application. Consequently, the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 24.06.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:5354