2025:UHC:7253 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 138 of 2025 18 August, 2025 Harish Dubey --Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Girish Chandra Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of the instant criminal revision, the revisionist has put to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 04.02.2025 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.1035 of 2023 State Vs. Harish Dubey and another, pending in the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’), whereby, the charges were framed against the revisionist for the aforementioned Sections. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the learned Trial Court has not applied its judicial mind while passing the impugned order of framing charges as to whether or not there is any ground of 1 2025:UHC:7253 presuming for the commission of offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. As per the evidence available on record, the revisionist is not at all instrumental in commission of the alleged crime as per the case of the prosecution and no offences under the aforementioned Sections are made out against the revisionist even on prima-facie basis. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has not recorded any reasonable grounds behind framing of such charges and has also not evaluated the materials and documents available on record. The allegations leveled upon the revisionist were totally unfounded even in the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation with regards to the involvement of the revisionist in the alleged offence. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the respondent No.2 himself has created ruckus and showed rowdysm, as his illegal demand was not being met and he himself abusing the process lodged a completely false FIR, misusing the provisions of the SC/ST Act, only in order to harass the revisionist for ulterior motives. It is further contended by him that the learned Trial Court at the time of framing of charge and passing the impugned order has failed to follow the mandate of the provisions of BNSS, 2023 and the corresponding provisions of Cr.P.C., with regards to contents of charge as well as with regards to the time, place and person and as such the charge framed by learned Trial Court is erroneous in nature. 2 2025:UHC:7253 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the learned Trial Court has rightly framed the charges upon the revisionist. 5. This Court vide order dated 24.07.2025 called for the Trial Court Record to verify the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist that in the charges framed, time, place and name of the accused persons were not mentioned, and therefore, the charges cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside by this Court. 6. Trial Court Record has been perused. There is nothing wrong in the charges framed by the learned Special Sessions Judge. In the charges time, place and name of accused persons have been mentioned. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist is totally scandalous and it appears that the said argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist without going through the charge framed by the learned Special Sessions Judge. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire material available on record as well as the charges framed on 04.02.2025 by the learned Special Sessions Judge against the accused persons in the Trial Court Record, I am in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the 3 2025:UHC:7253 learned Trial Court. It is a well-reasoned judgment, and, therefore, no interference is warranted. Admittedly, the trial is at the initial stage and witnesses are yet to be examined, therefore, there is no scope to scuttle the trial by discharging the revisionist at this stage. The reasoning given by the learned Special Sessions Judge, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Para Nos.6 and 7 of the impugned judgment and order dated 04.02.2025, is perfect, legal and need no interference. 8. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed. 9. Let the T.C.R. be immediately sent back to the learned Trial Court for consignment. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 18.08.2025 PN 4 PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe383 31bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FA E064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.08.19 15:10:20 +05'30'