Uttarakhand High Court
Brahmchari Dayanand vs State Of Uttarakhand on 13 July, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
UKHC010108952026
WPCRL/1178/2026
Brahmchari Dayanand ...........Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Brahamchari Sudhanand, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned A.G.A. along
with Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the
State.
3. By means of the present writ petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order
or direction quashing the judgment and order
dated 18.02.2026 passed by the learned 1st
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar
in Criminal Revision No.272 of 2023, whereby
the revisional court affirmed the order dated
19.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate/1st Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Haridwar in Complaint Case No.02
of 2018, dismissing the petitioner’s complaint
filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.. The
petitioner has further prayed that the complaint
case be remanded to the Court of the learned
Magistrate for fresh consideration and disposal
in accordance with law after duly appreciating
the statements recorded under Sections 200 and
202 Cr.P.C., the medical evidence and the
documentary evidence available on record,
keeping in view the settled principles governing
the exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 200,
202 and 203 Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner had initially
approached the police authorities by lodging a
complaint regarding the alleged incident, but no
F.I.R. was registered; that, thereafter, the
petitioner submitted a representation to the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar,
requesting registration of the F.I.R.; however,
despite the said representation, no action was
taken by the police authorities; that,
consequently, the petitioner instituted a
complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before
the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate/1st Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Haridwar alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 200-A, 295, 298, 323,
324, 325, 326, 307, 341 and 342 I.P.C., which
came to be registered as Complaint Case No.02 of
2018.
5. He would further submit that in support of
the complaint, the petitioner produced his
statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the
statements of witnesses recorded under Section
202 Cr.P.C., medical evidence and other
documentary evidence; that, however, the
learned Magistrate, without properly appreciating
the material brought on record, dismissed the
complaint by order dated 19.09.2023 holding
that no prima facie case was made out; that,
aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred
Criminal Revision No.272 of 2023 before the
learned 1st Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Haridwar, which also came to be
dismissed by judgment and order dated
18.02.2026 affirming the findings recorded by
the learned Magistrate.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
further submit that both the impugned orders
are legally unsustainable, having been passed
without proper appreciation of the evidence
available on record; that, neither the statements
recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. nor
the medical evidence and other documentary
evidence filed in support of the complaint were
duly considered while dismissing the complaint.
According to the petitioner, the courts below
failed to examine whether the material, if taken
at its face value, disclosed the commission of
cognizable offences warranting issuance of
process.
7. It is further submitted that the learned
Magistrate failed to appreciate the settled legal
position that contradictions, inconsistencies and
disputed questions of fact are matters to be
adjudicated during trial and not at the stage of
consideration under Section 203 Cr.P.C.; that, at
the said stage, the Magistrate is only required to
examine whether sufficient grounds exist for
proceeding against the accused and not whether
the evidence would ultimately result in
conviction. He would further submit that issues
such as whether the petitioner sustained injuries
in the alleged incident, the nature and extent of
such injuries, the circumstances under which
the incident occurred and the participation of the
proposed accused are all disputed questions
requiring appreciation of evidence during trial;
that, by adjudicating these disputed factual
issues at the threshold itself, the learned
Magistrate virtually assumed the role of the trial
court and exceeded the limited scope of inquiry
contemplated under Sections 200, 202 and 203
Cr.P.C.
8. Learned counsel would further submit that
at the stage of taking cognizance or considering
dismissal of a complaint under Section 203
Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is only required to
ascertain whether the material placed before the
Court discloses a prima facie commission of an
offence; that, the complainant is not required to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt at that stage. It is contended
that the reasoning adopted by the learned
Magistrate reflects application of a standard akin
to proof required for conviction instead of the
well-settled test of prima facie satisfaction. It is
further submitted that the revisional court also
failed to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in
accordance with law; that, instead of examining
whether the learned Magistrate had correctly
exercised jurisdiction under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
while considering the complaint supported by the
statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.,
medical evidence and other documentary
evidence, the revisional court merely affirmed the
conclusions of the learned Magistrate without
addressing the legal infirmities specifically raised
by the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that
both the impugned orders suffer from non-
application of mind and are liable to be set aside.
9. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed
the writ petition and supported the impugned
orders passed by the courts below, contending
that no interference is warranted in exercise of
the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and upon perusal of the material
available on record, this Court finds that the
learned Magistrate, while dismissing the
complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., failed to
consider the statements recorded under Sections
200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as well as the medical and
documentary evidence produced by the petitioner
in their proper perspective. At the stage of
deciding whether process should be issued, the
Magistrate is only required to ascertain whether
the material placed before the Court discloses
sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
proposed accused. The impugned order of the
learned Magistrate demonstrates that issues
which ought to have been left for adjudication
during trial were examined conclusively while
considering the maintainability of the complaint
itself.
11. This Court further finds that the revisional
court also failed to examine whether the learned
Magistrate had exercised jurisdiction under
Section 203 Cr.P.C. in accordance with the
settled principles of law. Instead of scrutinising
the legality, propriety and correctness of the
order passed by the learned Magistrate, the
revisional court merely concurred with the
conclusions recorded therein without
independently considering the legal objections
raised by the petitioner. Consequently, both the
impugned orders suffer from non-application of
mind and cannot be sustained in law.
12. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated
19.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate/1st Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Haridwar as well as the order dated
18.02.2026 passed by the learned 1st Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar are
hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the
Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate/1st Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Haridwar/court concerned for fresh
consideration of the complaint in accordance
with law after duly considering the statements
recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.,
the medical evidence and other documentary
evidence available on record and after affording
an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner/complainant.
13. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to
the aforesaid extent.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
Digitally signed by MAMTA
MA
RANI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF (Alok Mahra, J.)
UTTARAKHAND,
13.07.2026
MTA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf4
6f244f3e584af1449e430ef9
Mamta 00bf09a6d67ebbd6426713
29b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f
RANI
1d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca
8b66dd26690a191648ab5d
8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA
RANI
Date: 2026.07.13 17:58:48
+05'30'
