C482 No.451 of 2022 was disposed of by granting the petitioner's application to withdraw the petition. The petition challenging a Magistrate's order declining investigation and a District Judge's revision order was dismissed as withdrawn pending further enquiry.
Permission to withdraw the petition granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C482 No.451 of 2022
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Shobhit Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.8.
The challenge in this petition is made against the following:
(i) Order dated 27.11.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-II Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 1011 of 2018 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., “Mohan Lal Vs. Dharam Singh and Others.”
(ii) Judgment and order dated 05.03.2022 passed by the VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No.1 of 2019, “Mohan Lal Vs. Dharam Singh and Others (for short, “the revision”).
The record reveals that the petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code”). The Court of Magistrate sought a report from the police station and subsequently observed that there are no sufficient reasons to order for investigation and accordingly directed that the application under Section 156(3) of the Code be registered as a complaint. This order dated 27.11.2018 was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner in the revision. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner is before this Court.
During the course of hearing, on 08.04.2022, this Court passed the following order:
“In addition to any other issue that may be raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the following two questions would require determination:-
(i) Whether an application under Section 156(3) of the Code may be treated as a complaint? And;
(ii) Whether the application under Section 156(3) of the Code filed by the petitioner reveals a dispute purely civil in nature without any element of criminality? If it is so, whether this Court should consider this aspect even if it is not raised by the respondents before this Court?
List for hearing on 25.04.2022, as the first case.”
Heard and perused file.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the settled legal position, an application under Section 156(3) of the Code may be treated as a complaint by a Magistrate. He would seek permission to withdraw the petition.
Although this Court has also formulated another question with regard to the nature of dispute, particularly as to whether the dispute is purely civil in nature without any element of criminality. But, since the matter is yet to proceed for enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code, this Court refrains to adjudicate on this issue.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition. The permission is accorded.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Ravindra Maithani J.) 26.04.2022
RV
Mohan Lal
Dharam Singh and Others
Ravindra Maithani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
