Judgment reserved on: 31.12.2024 Judgment delivered on: 09.01.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (u/s 482) No.454 of 2016 Devendra Kumar ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents Presence:- Ms. Deepa Arya, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Vipul Painuli, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present C482 application, applicant has challenged the impugned orders dated 15.01.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar in Criminal Case No.366 of 2015, Devendra Kumar Vs. Kundan Singh Parihar and Others, and order dated 01.04.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Criminal Revision No.05 of 2016, Devendra Kumar Vs. Kundan Singh Parihar and Others, refusing to order for registration of FIR on the application filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant on 24.08.2015 was returning from his home, after registering the admission of his son-Dhruv Kumar in a local school. On his way, he met respondent No.2- Kundan Singh Parihar, who is posted as Patwari of Rawat Sera and at drunken stage, he said some caste based slurs to him and asked to arrange for liquor. When he expressed his inability for liquor, respondent No.2 poked him with lathi. Thereafter, the applicant 2 along with his son went to his home. At around 03:00 PM on the same day, the respondent No.2 along with his other companions who worked in the Tehsil, reached applicant’s home and took him to a nearby chauki by handcuffing him. Thereafter, he was brutally beaten there, which resulted into serious injuries and he became 20% disabled. The fact and nature of injuries are duly supported by medical evidence and reports. As, respondent No.2 with his fellow companions were apprehensive of legal action, which the applicant could take against him, they lodged a false complaint against him stating that the applicant obstructed him from doing his duty and also assaulted him. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the police authorities, the applicant preferred an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar urging him to direct the police to lodge the FIR under applicable provisions of law. In furtherance of this, learned CJM has recorded the statements of the applicant along with two eye witnesses who supported his story on oath, inspite of this, learned CJM, without considering the material on record, dismissed the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Learned CJM also failed to examine the two star witnesses, who were present at the spot of incident. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that against the order of learned CJM, Bageshwar, the applicant preferred a revision being 3 Criminal Revision No.05 of 2016, Devendra Kumar Vs. Kundan Singh Parihar and Others, in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, who also ignored the grounds and material available on record and mechanically dismissed the revision vide order dated 01.04.2016. Now, the applicant is before this Court by filing the present C482 application. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the basis of his counter affidavit stated that the respondent No.2 was posted as Revenue Sub Inspector Rawat Sera, Tehsil Kanda, District Bageshwar. Respondent No.2 vehemently denied the allegations of the applicant and stated that on 24.08.2015 at around 01:00 PM, the applicant for no reason quarreled with him and caused him severe injuries, the impact was so severe that he got six stitches in his forehead and he immediately registered an FIR at P.S. revenue S.I.- Sani Udiyar, Tehsil Kunda, District Bageshwar. He further submitted that the applicant was arrested for the offence and was henceforth released on bail. He also submitted that this C482 application along with the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. report is a story developed by the applicant after he was released of bail and the applicant’s concocted story has already been rightly disbelieved by both the lower courts below. 7. Learned State Counsel has also submitted that this is the case of cross-FIR and as the applicant is himself a person who assaulted an on duty government servant, he deserves no leniency. Moreso, when already two courts below have dismissed the application of the applicant, the present C482 application also deserves to be dismissed. 4 8. 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 applicant 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. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.01.2025 PN PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f027 6c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84B DB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.01.09 16:49:11 +05'30'