2025:UHC:1886 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 517 of 2022 19 March, 2025 Vijeta Mehra --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the order dated 29.01.2022, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh in Misc. Criminal Case No.211 of 2021, Vijeta Mehra vs. Jagdish Punetha & others, whereby the learned CJM has rejected the application under Section 156(3) and is seeking direction from this Court to register an FIR under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 503 & 34 IPC. 3. Facts in brief are that applicant initially lodged an FIR against the respondents regarding certain alleged fraud which after an inquiry report dated 05.12.2020 was closed stating it as of civil nature. Thereafter, she wrote a letter to SSP Pithoragarh on 05.01.2021 regarding the 1 2025:UHC:1886 said matter, but SSP Pithoragarh also did not take any action. After that, she moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by learned Magistrate after considering the report filed by police that another FIR is already lodged in the said matter. She challenged this Court before the revisional court and the learned revisional court remanded the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate who again dismissed the application vide order dated 29.01.2022. Hence, the applicant is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial court dismissed the application in a mechanical manner whereas it is a settled proposition of law that crime with each person constitute a separate offence and cannot be clubbed together in the same FIR. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, I am of the view that the impugned order passed on 29.01.2022 is an order against which revision lies. Applicant instead of preferring a revision has approached this Court. Since efficacious remedy is available against the impugned order the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected and the applicant is free to challenge the impugned order before the appropriate Forum under the law. It is made clear that this Court has not touched the merits of the case. 6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 19.03.2025 AK 2