Applicants challenged framing of charges under Sections 420, 506 and 120-B IPC for allegedly selling a fake Nagmani for ₹60 lakh, after the Sessions Court dismissed their revision. The High Court found no infirmity in the Magistrate's order and dismissed the application.
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.
2025:UHC:4434
| SL. No. |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C482 No.203 of 2015 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. B.S. Koranga, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This Criminal Misc. Application has been filed by the applicants, challenging the order dated 13.05.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.827 of 2011. Applicants have also challenged the order dated 15.11.2014 passed by learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Revision No.207 of 2014. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3. It transpires that an F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station, Dalanwala, District Dehradun by respondent no.2. with the averments that the applicants and four other persons, under a conspiracy, got sold him a fake_Nagmani_ for a sale consideration of ₹60,00,000/-. Upon investigation, charge sheet was filed against the applicants. Thereafter, cognizance was taken by the Magistrate and summoning order was issued against the applicants. Learned trial Court vide order dated 13.05.2014 framed charges under Section 420, 506 and 120-B I.P.C. against the applicants and two other persons. Against the order dated 13.05.2014, applicant filed Criminal Revision. The said Criminal Revision has been dismissed by learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun vide order dated 15.11.2014. Hence, this |
2025:UHC:4434
| criminal misc. application. |
|---|
| 4. Perusal of the impugned order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate reveals that he has considered & discussed all relevant aspects. Thus, the view taken by the |
| learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot be faulted. Learned Revisional Court was thus justified in dismissing the Revision Petition. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. |
| 5. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application fails and is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 03.06.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20ddd b7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987 446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.06.03 16:17:29 +05'30' |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the framing of charges under Sections 420, 506 and 120-B IPC for sale of a fake Nagmani warranted interference under Section 482 CrPC.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Applicants in C482 No.203 of 2015
State of Uttarakhand
Alok Mahra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
