Dismissed

Bhuwan Chandra Pokhariya Alias Buban v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC4 May 2026C528/1956/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The criminal miscellaneous application challenging the summoning order for offences under IPC 499 and 500 was dismissed. The Court held that the lower court was prima facie satisfied with the averments and there was no infirmity in the order.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous application is dismissed with no interference in the impugned summoning order.

No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			C-528 No. 1956 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Pokhariya, applicant in-person. 2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Akhil Kumar Sah and Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 4. The present criminal misc. application is filed challenging the summoning order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate/ Second Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Nainital in Criminal Case No. 554 of 2024, whereby, the applicant has been summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. 5. Applicant is present in-person. He would submit that false and frivolous complaint has been filed against him as applicant has filed several PILs specially PIL No. 65 of 2024 against the Nainital Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. and has highlighted their irregularities committed in it. That PIL is still pending and therefore he has prayed that till the PIL is pending, proceedings of Criminal Case No. 554 of 2024 shall remain stayed. 6. Heard applicant-in-person, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 7. Perusal of the impugned summoning order would reveal that the Judicial Magistrate concerned, after applying its judicial mind, has rightly summoned the applicant to face the trial and the summoning order has been passed as the court concerned was_prima facie_satisfied with the averments made in the plaint as well as with the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202

Date

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

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

C-528 No. 1956 of 2025
Hon’ble Alok Mah r a, J.
Mr. Bhuwan Chandra Pokhariya, applicant
in-person.
2.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the
State.
3.
Mr. Akhil Kumar Sah and Mr. D.C.S. Rawat,
learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
4.
The present criminal misc. application is
filed challenging the summoning order dated
31.07.2025 passed by the court of learned
Judicial Magistrate/ Second Additional Civil Judge
(Jr. Div.), Nainital in Criminal Case No. 554 of
2024,
whereby,
the
applicant
has
been
summoned for the offence punishable under
Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
5.
Applicant is present in-person. He would
submit that false and frivolous complaint has been
filed against him as applicant has filed several
PILs specially PIL No. 65 of 2024 against the
Nainital Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. and
has highlighted their irregularities committed in it.
That PIL is still pending and therefore he has
prayed that till the PIL is pending, proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 554 of 2024 shall remain
stayed.
6.
Heard applicant-in-person, learned counsel
for the respondents and perused the record.
7.
Perusal of the impugned summoning order
would
reveal
that
the
Judicial
Magistrate
concerned, after applying its judicial mind, has
rightly summoned the applicant to face the trial
and the summoning order has been passed as the
court concerned was_prima facie_satisfied with the
averments made in the plaint as well as with the
statements recorded under Section 200 and 202

Cr.P.C. It is settled law that at the time of tak cognizance, the Court has to only satisfy itself it is always open for the applicant to app before the learned Magistrate and file objection against the summoning order. 8. The court concerned has considered discussed all relevant aspects. Thus, the v taken by the learned Judicial Magistr concerned cannot be faulted. This Court does find any infirmity or illegality in the impug summoning order dated 31.07.2025 passed the court of learned Judicial Magistrate/ Sec Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Nainital Criminal Case No. 554 of 2024, for the offe punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of I Hence, this Court does not find any reason interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the criminal misc. applica fails and is hereby dismissed.	ing and ear his & iew ate not ned by ond in nce PC. to tion
( Alok Mah r a J 04.05.2026 Ujjwal	.)

Cr.P.C. It is settled law that at the time of tak
cognizance, the Court has to only satisfy itself
it is always open for the applicant to app
before
the
learned
Magistrate
and
file
objection against the summoning order.
8.
The court concerned has considered
discussed all relevant aspects. Thus, the v
taken
by
the
learned
Judicial
Magistr
concerned cannot be faulted. This Court does
find any infirmity or illegality in the impug
summoning order dated 31.07.2025 passed
the court of learned Judicial Magistrate/ Sec
Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Nainital
Criminal Case No. 554 of 2024, for the offe
punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of I
Hence, this Court does not find any reason
interfere with the impugned order.
9.
Accordingly, the criminal misc. applica
fails and is hereby dismissed.

ing
and
ear
his
&
iew
ate
not
ned
by
ond
in
nce
PC.
to
tion

( Alok Mah r a J
04.05.2026
Ujjwal

Bhuwan Chandra Pokhariya Alias Buban v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuwan Chandra Pokhariya Alias Buban 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

Deen Mohammad Alias Dinna Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ankit Rathore Vs State of Uttarakhand

Amit Arya Vs State of Uttarakhand

Nidhi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chand Khan Vs Mohd Anees