HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No. 717 of 2024

22 July, 2025

Parmal

--Revisionist

Versus

Pali & others

--Respondents

---

Presence:-

Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

---

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of present criminal revision, revisionist has put to challenge the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Misc. Criminal Case No.11 of 2024, Parmal vs. Pali & another and further directed the learned Sessions Judge to allow the application filed by the revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and summon the respondents under appropriate Sections of BNS, 2023 as well as under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Brief facts of the case are that an application was filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code by the applicant, Parmal—an individual belonging to a Scheduled Caste—seeking registration of an FIR against several individuals, including private persons and government officials, at the Piran Kaliyar Police Station in Haridwar. The core of the applicant's claim revolves around a land dispute involving allegedly fraudulent

transfers and mutations. The applicant alleged that the land he originally sold to Smt. Pali in 2008 was subsequently resold and then gifted multiple times, eventually ending up in the name of one Jahid. Crucially, applicant claims that Khasra No. 406/2, which he asserts originally belonged to him, was fraudulently transferred through a forged gift deed. He further accuses certain government officials—specifically the Lekhpal/Patwari, Kanungo, and Nayab Tehsildar—of accepting bribes and improperly mutating the land records, first in the name of Laxmichand and then in the name of Jahid, despite being aware of the illegitimacy of the transactions. It is also stated that on May 15th, 2022, Jahid, Kulveer, and Telluram, along with others, unlawfully entered Khasra No. 406/2 and illegally cut down approximately one thousand trees. When the applicant confronted them, he was allegedly subjected to physical assault, verbal abuse, and caste-based slurs. Despite filing a complaint with the local police, no action was taken. Subsequently, an application was submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar, but still no action ensued. In his application, the applicant has requested that legal action be initiated and a case be registered against the accused persons. Said application has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar by the impugned judgment and order.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar, is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence available on record. She further submits that respondent nos. 1 to 5, in collusion with respondent nos. 6, 7, and 8, fraudulently got the land registered in their names. When the applicant

attempted to inquire into the matter, he was subjected to harassment and was also targeted with caste-based slurs. It is further submitted that the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was erroneously dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the dispute is of a civil nature and that the applicant is attempting to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil matter.

4. Per contra, the learned State Counsel submits that the trial court, after duly appreciating all the material available on record, has rightly passed the impugned order.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. The trial court, in its order, held that there exist specific legal remedies under civil law for addressing disputes arising out of defective sale transactions, gifts, or mutations in land records. The trial court emphasized that such matters cannot be adjudicated summarily or through criminal proceedings, and instead must be addressed through appropriate civil legal processes. It was further opined that, under the factual circumstances presented, no case was made out for police investigation. Accordingly, the applicant was advised to seek recourse before a competent civil court.

7. From perusal of the order dated 04.07.2024 and findings recorded by the trial court, this Court is with the view taken by the trial court, upholding the reasoning that the dispute pertains to civil rights and does not warrant criminal investigation.

8. In this view of the matter, I find no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Thus, there is no ground for interference in this matter.

Accordingly, the present criminal revision fails and is hereby dismissed.

9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 22.07.2025

AK