Dismissed

Devendra Dhiman v. Sunil Kumar and Others

Uttarakhand HC15 Dec 2020CRLA/253/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court treated the appeal as a revision and dismissed it. The Court found no illegality, impropriety or error in the trial court's order discharging respondents who were faced with no evidence during the Section 244 stage of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

What did the court decide?

The revision against the order of discharge was dismissed and the Special Leave to Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Devendra Dhiman Vs Sunil Kumar and Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 2018 With Special Leave to Appeal No. 131 of 2018

¶3

Devendra Dhiman ......Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

Sunil Kumar and others ….Respondents

¶6

Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Siddharth Bisht, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the private respondents.

¶7

JUDGMENT

¶8

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

¶9

Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 18.11.2017, passed in Complaint Case No. 1456 of 2014, Devendra Dhiman Vs. Sunil Kumar and others, by the court Judicial Magistrate/2^nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar (for short “the case”). By the impugned order, the respondents have been discharged of the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 and 427 IPC.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

¶11

It appears that a complaint was filed by the appellant against the respondents under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 and 427 IPC, but subsequently, the appellant did not adduce any evidence at the stage of Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “ the Code”). Since, there was no evidence to frame charges, by the impugned order all the respondents were discharged. This order is impugned.

¶12

¶13

The applicant has filed an application under Section 378 (4) of the Code seeking leave to appeal. The Court requested learned counsel for the appellant to tell as to how this provision of law is applicable because it applies if order of acquittal is to be assailed. But, here is the case where there is no acquittal recorded as such. The respondents have been discharged.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that this appeal may be treated as a revision. The Court proposes to do so and treat it as a revision.

¶15

The Court further requested learned counsel for the revisionist to tell as to on which ground the order is assailable. There was no evidence at the stage of Section 244 of the Code. In such eventuality what was the course open to the Court?

¶16

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that opportunity of adducing evidence by the revisionist was closed on 04.10.2016, but it is not impugned herein.

¶17

Under what circumstances opportunity was closed, this order is not filed before this Court. What is impugned is order dated 18.11.2017 and there appears to be no illegality, impropriety and error in the impugned order. Hence, the revision has no force and is deserved to be dismissed.

¶18

9. The revision is dismissed.

¶19

Special Leave to Appeal No. 131 of 2018 also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶20

Jitendra

Devendra Dhiman v. Sunil Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Dhiman v. Sunil Kumar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cyrial H. Joseph Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Suchit Narang Vs State of Uttarakhand

Navneet Chauhan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Lakhvinder Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Devendra Dhiman Vs Sunil Kumar and Others

Dr. Ved Prakash Tyagi Vs Union of India