2025:UHC:5345 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482/1349/2015 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Rajendra Arya proxy counsel for Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State. 3. Mr. Shivam Raturi proxy counsel for Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. This petition under Section C-482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant/accused to quash the impugned order dated 08.10.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 2595 of 2014 ‘Smt. Nirmala Rawat Vs. Dhan Singh’, whereby the said complaint case has been dismissed as well as the impugned judgment and order dated 29.07.2015 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 379 of 2014 Smt. Nirmla Rawat Vs. State and another. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that The applicant purchased a piece of land from respondent no.2 for a consideration of ₹10,50,000. However, it subsequently came to the applicant’s knowledge that the said land had already been mortgaged to a bank by respondent no.2, against which a loan of ₹9,00,000 had been availed. Feeling cheated and deceived, the applicant filed a criminal complaint against respondent no.2. However, the complaint was dismissed by the concerned Magistrate. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the applicant preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, which too was dismissed. Consequently, the applicant has approached this Court challenging the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the revisional court. 6. It is submitted that the revisional court without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the 2025:UHC:5345 material available on record, passed the impugned order in a cursory and mechanical manner. The alleged sale deed was executed dishonestly as the seller i.e. respondent no.2 had already mortgaged the property in question, which shows dishonest and nefarious intention of respondent no.2, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 would submit that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, which has been given criminal colour by the applicant by filing the complaint case. He would further submit that the instant criminal proceedings has been initiated just to put undue pressure upon the applicant. Both the courts rightly evaluated the facts and dismissed the complaint as well as revision filed by the applicant. 8. Heard and perused the record in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. Upon perusal of the impugned orders, it is evident that both the trial court and the revisional court have passed well-reasoned orders after due appreciation of the evidence and material on record. The contention of the applicant that the dispute is of a criminal nature is not supported by the facts, which rather point towards a civil dispute arising out of a property transaction. There is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. In view of the above, the Court finds no merit in the present application. Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 24.06.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:5345