Jai Kishore Pandey and another vs State of Uttaranchal and others

Hon''ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—This revision has been directed against the judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal dated 12.1.2004 rendered in criminal revision No. 33 of 2003, Vijay Singh Negi and Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.. The said revision was preferred in the court of Sessions Judge against the order of cognizance dated 31.7.2003 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tehri Garhwal in Crl. Case No. 367 of 2003.

Even in the third time revised call, none appears on behalf of either of the parties, however Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder is present for the State. So, this Court itself has gone through the controversy involved in the matter by perusing the lower court record.

It appears that the complaint was filed by Sri Jai Kishore Pandey and Devendra Prasad against Sri Vijay Singh Negi and Bhim Bahadur Thapa for the offence of Sections 448, 380, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code. The dispute relates to a SRG Trust Sumitra Dham where the pilgrims take rest and stay. Allegations were made by the complainants that the locks of some of the rooms were broken by Vijay Singh Negi and made the adverse possession over some of the rooms. When Sri Vijay Singh Negi was asked to vacate the room, he intimidated the complainants and extended every sort of threat to kill them along with his servant Sri Bhim Bahadur Thapa.

After recording the statement of the complainant as well as that of witnesses Krishan Avtar Gupta and Arvind Singh Rathour u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure., the learned Magistrate passed the order of cognizance, as above, which was challenged in the revision. The learned Sessions Judge in the revision has opined that since Sri Bhim Bahadur Thapa was the servant and now, he is no more a servant of the Trust and the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the lower court has not assessed and weighed the veracity of the statements properly while passing the order of cognizance.

Having gone through the reasons stated therein, this Court too is satisfied with the reasonings stated by the learned Sessions Judge. The reasonings given by the revisional court have not been assailed by any cogent, consistent and convincing ground in this revision. So, this revision is meritless and liable to be dismissed, inasmuch as, there appears to be no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order dated 23.3.2004 is vacated.