2025:UHC:862 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1453 of 2022 13 February, 2025 Waheed Hasan --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Sameeksha Negi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Lalit Sharma, 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. Respondent/State has filed the objection along with delay condonation application (IA No.2/2024). The delay is condoned for the reasons stated in the affidavit/application. Objection is taken on record. 2. Rejoinder affidavit is also taken on record. Misc. application (IA No.3/2024) stands disposed of accordingly. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being finally decided. 4. By means of the present C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the order dated 25.02.2021, passed by 1st Additional CJM, Dehradun in Misc. Case No.301 of 2021, Waheed Hasan vs. Jameer Ahmad & others, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has been 1 2025:UHC:862 rejected as well as the judgment and order dated 23.06.2022, passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No.38 of 2021, Waheed Hasan vs. Jameer Ahmad & others, whereby the revision was dismissed and the order dated 25.02.2021 was affirmed. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the civil court has passed an ex-parte decree against the private respondent nos.2 to 4 and they have been restrained from interfering in the land of which the applicant claims to be joint Bhumidhar in possession. But, on 10.12.2020, at around 09.00, respondent nos.2 to 4 entered into the disputed land and committed marpeet with Meer Hasan, who sustained injuries and after threatening him with life, respondent nos.2 to 4 left the scene. When no first information report was lodged against the respondent nos.2 to 4 by the SHO Patel Nagar, Dehradun, an application was moved to SSP, Dehradun. But when both the authorities have failed to lodge the first information report, applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. 6. The said application came to be rejected vide order dated 25.02.2021. The learned Magistrate was of the view that prima facie no cognizable offence was made out from the averment made in the application of the applicant. Against the order dated 25.02.2021, applicant preferred a Criminal Revision No.38 of 2021, Waheed Hasan vs. Jameer Ahmad & others, which met with the same fate and the revision was rejected and the order passed by learned Magistrate was affirmed by the revisional court. 7. It is feeling aggrieved by both these orders, the 2 2025:UHC:862 applicant is before this Court. 8. I have gone through the reasoning assigned by learned Magistrate as well as learned revisional court while passing the order impugned. The revisional court in para 7 of the judgment has categorically stated that incident of marpeet with Meer Hasan did not find mention either in the application moved by the applicant to the SHO Police Station Patel Nagar, Dehradun or in the application moved to the SSP, Dehradun. In this view of the matter, revisional court found no illegality in the order passed by learned Magistrate and accordingly, the revision was dismissed and the order of Magistrate was affirmed. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, I find no irregularity or illegality in the judgments and orders passed by the courts below. There are concurrent findings of fact against the applicant. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application fails and the same is dismissed. 10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 13.02.2025 AK 3