Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1508 (UTT)

SANDEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

CRLR/61/2026 · 2026-01-20

Alok Mahra

Criminal Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:588 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR No.61 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Ankit Rana, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, A.G.A. and Mr. Chitrath Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This Criminal Revision has been filed challenging the judgment & order dated 05.01.2026 passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2025. Revisionist has also challenged the order dated 24.02.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun in Misc. Case No.2196 of 2023. 3. Earlier, respondent No. 2, the wife of the revisionist, instituted proceedings against him under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun vide order dated 24.02.2024 decreed the suit ex-parte, as the revisionist, despite due service of notice, failed to enter appearance or contest the matter. Aggrieved thereby, the revisionist preferred an Appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, inter alia, contending that he had not received notice of the suit. Learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun vide order dated 05.01.2026 dismissed the Appeal filed by the revisionist. Hence, this criminal revision. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the 2026:UHC:588 record, it is evident that the learned Appellate Court meticulously examined the record and noted that notices both in the suit and execution proceedings had been dispatched to the same address furnished by the revisionist. The tracking report from the postal authorities unequivocally established tender and service of the suit notice upon him prior to the ex-parte decree. The Appellate Court further observed that the revisionist ought to have filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order, which course he neglected to adopt. This Court does not find any infirmity in the orders impugned. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) Vacation Judge 20.01.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7 393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98744 6351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.01.20 18:12:42 +05'30' 2026:UHC:588