Majinder Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J

The present C-482 application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 07.08.2023 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 74 of 2023 ‘Captain Ravinder Gill v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors’, whereby an order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the 1st Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was set-aside.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.

Counsel for the petitioner would submit that an application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code” for brevity) was filed against the present petitioner and his daughter Avneet Kaur for directing the police to investigate the offence as alleged in that application; that, the son of the Respondent no. 2 is married to the daughter of the petitioner namely Avneet Kaur; that, the trial court disallowed this application vide order dated 03.03.2023 with the observations that no cognizable offence having been committed by the petitioner and his daughter is made out; that, in revision preferred by the respondent no. 2, the revisional court allowed the revision and directed the trial court to reconsider the application after hearing the parties in the light of the observations made in the impugned order in revision.

Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law for the reason that the other person i.e. Avneet Kaur, the daughter of present petitioner was not served as per law by notice in the revisional proceedings; that, the application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code was made as counter blast to the divorce petition pending between the daughter of the petitioner and son of the respondent no. 2; that, an F.I.R. at the instance of the daughter of the petitioner under Section 498-A etc. of I.P.C. was registered against the respondent no. 2 and his family members; that, the court in revision has erred in directing the trial court to reconsider the application of the respondent no. 2 in the light of the observations made in the impugned order and then decide the said application after hearing the parties; that, the impugned order could not have been passed in absence of daughter of petitioner; and that, revisional court erred in not appreciating the fact that the application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code was nothing but a counter blast to the F.I.R. under Section 498-A etc. of I.P.C. against him by the petitioner.

In the light of the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, this Court perused all the documents filed with present petition.

Perusal of the application filed by respondent no. 2 under Section 156(3) of the Code would show that in Paragraph Nos. 8 & 9 of the application, it was alleged that on 30.10.2021, the daughter-in-law of the respondent no. 2 and petitioner criminally trespassed into the house of the respondent no. 2 with one more other person at 06:05 P.M. and took away one diamond set, one choker, one Tanishq set, one Longines watch, seven gold coins, two diamond bangles, one kundan set, two golden bangles, one diamond ring, one gold ring, 2000 dollar cash and Rs.  45000/- cash and the same is recorded in the CCTV footage installed at the residence of respondent no. 2.

Prima facie, it cannot be said that the allegations made in Paragraph Nos. 8 & 9 of the application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. Secondly, it is the fact that the daughter of the petitioner Avneet Kaur, though respondent no. 1 in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is not the petitioner herein. The fact whether Avneet Kaur was served or not served in the revisional court with the notice, could have been submitted by her only and not by the petitioner. A photocopy of one purported Registered Post envelope is placed on record saying that daughter of petitioner, Avneet Kaur could not be found despite her being visited repeatedly. But merely for this photocopy of alleged Registered Post envelope, it cannot be held that noting dated 04.07.2023 of service by revisional court, that service on respondent Avneet Kaur has already effected, is illegal.

Thirdly, the arguments that an application was moved by the petitioner under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning the record of divorce and the criminal proceedings consequent upon the registration of the F.I.R. under Section 498-A etc. of I.P.C. and this application was allowed but not considered is also misplaced. Even if, it is presumed that such cases are pending between the daughter of petitioner and son of respondent no 2 it does not mean that the order under Section 156(3) of the Code could not be passed when any cognizance offence is made out.

In view of the above, there is no occasion for interference with the impugned order, hence, the C-482 Application is hereby dismissed in limine.