HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.654 of 2023 Rakesh Kandpal ………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ………Respondents Mr. Yogesh Upadhyaya, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA with Ms. Sweta B. Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Krishan Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.2 through video conferencing. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Present C-482 application has been filed by the applicant for quashing/setting aside the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar and further to direct the Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar to restore the proceedings of Misc. Criminal Case No.615 of 2018, Rakesh Kandpal vs. Smt. Neeraj Kandpal. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that applicant and respondent no.2 got married as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 29.11.2011 and on 05.05.2016, respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur alleging assault with knife and misbehaviour. The said court on 19.05.2016 converted the aforesaid application as a complaint case bearing Complaint Case No.2222 of 2016, Neelam Kandpal vs. Rakesh Kandpal, and summoned the applicant to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 504 and 506 of IPC. On obtaining knowledge about the said case, the applicant preferred a criminal revision on 17.12.2018 registered as Misc. Criminal Case No.615 of 2018, Rakesh Kandpal vs. 1 Smt. Neeraj Kandpal, as it was filed alongwith a delay condonation application. The learned Revisional Court dismissed the said miscellaneous criminal case on account of non prosecution. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Revisional Court committed a grave irregularity in dismissing the case in default. As it is directly against the settled proposition of law that revision can only be heard on merit and cannot be dismissed in default. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record of the case and having gone through the settled proposition of law as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Santosh vs. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 307, in which, the Hon’ble Court opined that after admission of criminal revision, there is no procedure for dismissing the same in default and even if the revisionist is absent, the revision cannot be dismissed in default, but has to be decided on merits. 5. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the Criminal Revision was not admitted as the same was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case being a time barred revision. In the opinion of this Court, the case should not have been put to an end merely on technicalities and the lis to be decided between the parties on merits. This Court is of the opinion that this C-482 application is fit to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the C-482 application is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.02.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar is hereby set aside. The learned 2 Revisional Court is hereby directed to decide the aforesaid Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.615 of 2018, Rakesh Kandpal vs. Smt. Neeraj Kandpal, on its own merit, in accordance with law. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 29.04.2025 Ravi 3