CRLR/315/2024 of ARJUN SHARMA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALCriminal Revision No.315 of 2024

Arjun Sharma ………Revisionist

Versus

State of Uttarakhand ………Respondent

Mr. Mayank Datta, Advocate for the revisionist through video conferencing. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA with Ms. Sweta B. Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Ms. Divya Jain, Advocate for the private respondent.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

This revision preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 02.02.2024 and 01.03.2024 passed by learned 6[th]Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Misc. Criminal Case No.380 of 2023, Vadi vs. Vinod Singh Rana and others.

2. Facts in nutshell are that FIR No.140 of 2022, P.S. Vasant Vihar, District Dehradun under the Gangsters Act was instituted on the basis of four FIRs. The revisionist states himself to be the victim and complainant in one of the FIR i.e. FIR No.43 of 2017. In the said report, the final report was submitted. The court concerned issued notice against the said final report, in which, no objection was filed. The revisionist then moved protest petition before the court on 10.10.2023, but the court returned the protest petition to the revisionist asking him to show his locus standi.Subsequently, when the matter was transferred to another court, the revisionist moved another application for the same prayer. However, by order dated 02.02.2024 passed by learned 6[th] Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, the

application moved by the revisionist was rejected holding that the revisionist has no locus standi in the matter. Thereafter, another application dated 01.03.2024 was filed by the revisionist, but the said application was also dismissed by the court on the same date, i.e. 01.03.2024. Moreover, the revisionist moved one another application before the DGP, Uttarakhand requesting to take action against the erring officer and to expunge the final report, therefore, requested the Court by moving an application to defer the case till it is decided by the DGP. The said application was also dismissed by the court imposing the cost of Rs.1,000/- on the revisionist by order dated 01.03.2024. Challenging those orders, present revision has been filed.

3. In the instant matter, pursuant to FIR No.140 of 2022, final report had been submitted by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. In the Crime No.43 of 2017, the advocates appearing for the informant as well as for the accused had been given opportunity against the said final report. It is the prerogative of the court either to accept the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer or to take other action as envisaged under Section 190 Cr.P.C. on the said report. However, there is no ground to hear any other party on the said report.

4. The instant case relates to Gangster Act even there was no protest petition was filed. Hence, the court held that the revisionist had no right of hearing. Accordingly, it rejected the application by order dated 02.02.2024.

5. When another application was moved by the informant on the ground of filing objection, the court held that this application was nothing, but sheer abuse of process of court in order to adjourn the proceeding of the case unnecessarily. Accordingly, the adjournment application was moved imposing cost of Rs.1,000/-.

6. With the above observations, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The revision fails and the same is dismissed at the threshold.

Ravi

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 01.07.2025