Dismissed

Yashpal Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC7 Sept 2021C482/263/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge disposed of a Chapter 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashing of an order fixing a date for inquiry under Section 202. The court held that an inquiry date fixation is not a cognizance order, and thus the applicant lacked the right to file the application.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			C482 No.263 of 2021 Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. V.S. Rathore, learned AGA for the State. This criminal misc. application has been filed U/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dated 01.02.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Complaint Case No.4776 of 2018, ‘State vs. Dr. Ankit Aggarwal and others’. Heard learned counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the record, a secret information was received regarding the offence punishable under Section P.C.P.N.D.T. Act; accordingly, a team was constituted on 10.03.2018 in which Shri Narendra Bhandari (Joint Magistrate) and Dr. H.D. Shakya (Addl. C.M.O.) were nominated; accordingly, they reached at the spot along with a lady, the applicant was a Doctor and involved in the crime; thereafter, an FIR was lodged on 11.03.2018. After completion of the investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the form of final report. Accordingly, the concerned Magistrate issued notice to the informant; as per the order dated 19.10.2019 passed by the Addl. C.J.M., Laksar, Haridwar, the informant did not put her appearance, ultimately, the concerned court allowed the final report on 19.10.2019; before passing the impugned order the respondent has filed a complaint case under the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act before the C.J.M., Haridwar on 04.04.2018; accordingly, the concerned Magistrate issued a notice against the applicant.

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

C482 No.263 of 2021
Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for
the applicant.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, learned AGA for the
State.
This criminal misc. application has been
filed U/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned
order dated 01.02.2021 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Complaint Case
No.4776 of 2018, ‘State vs. Dr. Ankit Aggarwal
and others’.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
From the perusal of the record, a secret
information was received regarding the offence
punishable under Section P.C.P.N.D.T. Act;
accordingly,
a
team
was
constituted
on
10.03.2018 in which Shri Narendra Bhandari
(Joint Magistrate) and Dr. H.D. Shakya (Addl.
C.M.O.) were nominated; accordingly, they
reached at the spot along with a lady, the
applicant was a Doctor and involved in the
crime; thereafter, an FIR was lodged on
11.03.2018.
After completion of the investigation, the
concerned Investigating Officer submitted a
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the form of
final
report.
Accordingly,
the
concerned
Magistrate issued notice to the informant; as per
the order dated 19.10.2019 passed by the Addl.
C.J.M., Laksar, Haridwar, the informant did not
put her appearance, ultimately, the concerned
court allowed the final report on 19.10.2019;
before
passing
the
impugned
order
the
respondent has filed a complaint case under the
P.C.P.N.D.T. Act before the C.J.M., Haridwar
on 04.04.2018; accordingly, the concerned
Magistrate issued a notice against the applicant.

Aggrieved by it, the present applicant and accused-Ravindra Singh preferred the Crim Revision No.258 of 2019 before the 3^rdA Sessions Judge, Haridwar; after hearing parties, the learned Revisional Court allowed revision vide its order dated 31.10.2020 and aside the order dated 04.04.2018 and the m was remanded back to the concerned Magist with the direction to pass a fresh order in ligh observation made in the revision. Accordin the concerned C.J.M. passed the impugned o on 01.02.2021; as per the impugned order, concerned C.J.M. fixed the dated i.e. 30.04.2 for conducting an inquiry as envisaged u Section 202 Cr. P.C., 1973. From the perusal of the order, it is c that, no summoning order was passed against present applicant; the concerned court only fi the date for conducting an inquiry, as Section 202 Cr.P.C. In fact, the applicant is the accused in the eye of law because cognizance order was passed under the Cr. If any order is passed certainly the applicant have a right to file a revision before concerned Sessions Judge. Since no cognizance order has been pa till yet; accordingly, the present application f	co- inal ddl. the the set atter rate t of gly, rder the 021 nder lear the xed per not no P.C. will the ssed iled
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to	be
dismissed. Accordingly, the instant misc. applica is dismissed. Pending application, if any, sta disposed of.	tion nds
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 07.09.2021 BS

Aggrieved by it, the present applicant and
accused-Ravindra Singh preferred the Crim
Revision No.258 of 2019 before the 3^rdA
Sessions Judge, Haridwar; after hearing
parties, the learned Revisional Court allowed
revision vide its order dated 31.10.2020 and
aside the order dated 04.04.2018 and the m
was remanded back to the concerned Magist
with the direction to pass a fresh order in ligh
observation made in the revision. Accordin
the concerned C.J.M. passed the impugned o
on 01.02.2021; as per the impugned order,
concerned C.J.M. fixed the dated i.e. 30.04.2
for conducting an inquiry as envisaged u
Section 202 Cr. P.C., 1973.
From the perusal of the order, it is c
that, no summoning order was passed against
present applicant; the concerned court only fi
the date for conducting an inquiry, as
Section 202 Cr.P.C. In fact, the applicant is
the accused in the eye of law because
cognizance order was passed under the Cr.
If any order is passed certainly the applicant
have a right to file a revision before
concerned Sessions Judge.
Since no cognizance order has been pa
till yet; accordingly, the present application f

co-
inal
ddl.
the
the
set
atter
rate
t of
gly,
rder
the
021
nder
lear
the
xed
per
not
no
P.C.
will
the
ssed
iled

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to

dismissed.
Accordingly, the instant misc. applica
is dismissed.
Pending
application,
if
any,
sta
disposed of.

tion
nds

(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
07.09.2021
BS

Yashpal Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yashpal Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Deshraj Saini Vs State of Uttarakhand

Navin Sajwan Alias Sonu Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajiv Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

M/S Karam Chand Thapar Alias Bros (Coal Sales)Ltd. Vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment

Deepak Prasad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand