2025:UHC:3729 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 355 of 2023 09th May, 2025 Yogiraj Nirvan Dev ………….Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, D.A.G. with Mr. Vikas Uniyal, B.H. for the State. Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the order dated 29.01.2022, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Misc. Case No.6 of 2022, Yogiraj Nirvan Dev Vs. Omendra Singh @ Brijesh & others whereby an application moved by the applicant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has been rejected as well as judgment and order dated 11.11.2022, passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh in Criminal Revision No.56 of 2022, whereby revision petition was dismissed in the absence of the applicant. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the application filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has been rejected by trial court only on the premise that application of the applicant has not been supported by any affidavit as mandated by Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2015) 6 1 2025:UHC:3729 SCC 287. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that rejection of the application of the applicant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was highly technical and instead of rejecting the application the applicant could have been provided with an opportunity to file an affidavit as required. 4. So far as revisional court’s order is concerned, the same is decided ex-parte against the applicant, in his absence. 5. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, this Court is of the view that instead of rejecting the application the learned Magistrate should have provided the applicant with an opportunity to file an affidavit, in support of a complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., therefore, the order suffers from patent illegality and same is hereby quashed. 6. The revisional court’s order is also quashed and the matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate, who shall deal with the complaint case moved by the applicant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., in light of the aforesaid judgment after providing opportunity to the applicant to produce or supply the affidavit in support of his application. The applicant shall appear before the learned Magistrate on or before 15.05.2025. 7. Accordingly C482 application stands allowed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.05.2025 SK 2