2025:UHC:3870 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1219 of 2022 14 May, 2025 Rohitash Sharma --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Shakti Singh, learned counsel for the applicant (appeared through V.C.). Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of present C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 30.11.2018, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.173 of 2014, Mahant Mishrinath vs. Padam Prakash as well as the order dated 14.01.2020, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge 1st, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.14 of 2019, Mahant Shir 108 Mishrinath (deceased), 1/1. Rohitash Sharma vs. State of Uttarakhand, whereby the order dated 30.11.2018, passed by learned Magistrate was affirmed. 2. Facts in brief are that one Mahant Sri 108 Mishinath Yogi Maharaj filed a complaint against the respondents under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC alleging that the respondents taking benefit of his old age fraudently got a gift deed executed by him. Aforesaid complaint was registered as Complaint Case No.155 of 1 2025:UHC:3870 2013 (New No.173 of 2014), Mahant Mishrinath vs. Padm Prakash & others. After following due process of law, learned A.C.J.M., Haridwar summoned the accused person/respondents under Section 420 IPC. Thereafter, the complainant (Sri Mahant Mishrinath) expired on 17.01.2014 but as he before his death has executed a registered Will regard to the half share of the concerned property in favour of the applicant. Applicant moved an application under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C. in the court of learned ACJM seeking permission to pursue the complaint which was allowed by learned court vide order dated 21.01.2014. But, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, respondents preferred a Criminal Revision No.177 of 2017 and the revisional court vide order dated 31.05.2017 allowed the revision filed by the respondents, set-aside the order dated 21.01.2014. Thereafter, learned ACJM dismissed the complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No.173 of 2014, Mahant Mishrinath vs. Padm Prakash on ground of absence of complainant, against which, the applicant filed a Criminal Revision No.14 of 2019, Mahant Shri 108 Mishrinath (deceased), 1/1 Rohitash Sharma vs. State of Uttarakhand & another, which was also dismissed by learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Bala Saheb Thakre vs. Shri Venkat @ Babru; 2006 (5) SCC 530. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the courts below have not applied their judicial mind while passing the impugned orders. He further submits that there is material irregularity in the evidence produced by the complainant. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that 2 2025:UHC:3870 both the judgments and orders challenged before this Court are legally sound and perfect and, therefore, do not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court, I find favour with the reasoning assigned by the courts below. The revision-petition has rightly been rejected and the order passed by learned Magistrate has rightly been upheld. 7. The reasoning has been assigned by the Revisional Court in para 11 of the impugned revisional judgment wherein it is stated that after the death of complainant, application for pursuing/conducting the complaint has not been filed by his legal representatives and also the revision petition has also not been filed by all the stakeholders. This Court finds favour with the reasoning assigned by learned Revisional Court. 8. Hence, the present criminal misc. application fails and is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 30.11.2018, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No.173 of 2014, Mahant Mishrinath vs. Padam Prakash and the order dated 14.01.2020, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge 1st, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.14 of 2019, Mahant Shir 108 Mishrinath (deceased), 1/1. Rohitash Sharma vs. State of Uttarakhand are hereby affirmed. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 14.05.2025 AK 3 2025:UHC:3870 4