Uttarakhand High Court
Aas Mohd & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 28 July, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
UKHC010124252026
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and
No.
Registrar's order with
Signatures
2026:UHC:6472
UKHC010124252026
C528/1537/2026
Aas Mohd & another --Applicants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for the
applicants.
2. Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned AGA, for the State
of Uttarakhand/1.
3. The instant petition is moved by the present
applicants Aas Mohd. S/o Sri Abdul Sattar and Afjal
Ali @ Afjal S/o Inamul Huq, challenging the order of
the learned Session Judge, Haridwar dated 30.05.2026,
passed in Criminal Revision No.67 of 2025, “Aas
Mohammad and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand’, as
well as against the order dated 12.08.2024, passed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in
Misc. Case No.87 of 2024.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the
applicants that the proceedings are completely an
abuse of process of law arising out of a civil dispute,
before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division) Haridwar in Original Suit No.75 of 2019,
“Aas Mohd. Vs. Arvind Kanojiya” which was decreed
ex parte on 25.08.2021. He submits that in this
particular case i.e. Original Suit No.75 of 2019, “Aas
Mohd. Vs. Arvind Kanojiya” the applicants challenge
the sale deed dated 17.02.2007, regarding which the
complainant lodged the FIR. He submits that the
complainant himself was one of the defendants in
Original Suit No.75 of 2019, “Aas Mohd. Vs. Arvind
Kanojiya”, and he is fully aware that in the pending
civil suit, he is the defendant, despite this, he lodged
the FIR on 16.08.2022, bearing FIR No.0450 of 2022, at
Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, Haridwar implicating
both the applicants, and three other persons, namely,
Maneesh Gupta, Chandrapal Singh and three-four
unknown persons for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 120-B, 447, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of
IPC. He submits that in this FIR, after thorough
investigation,the final report was filed which was
assailed by the respondent/complainant by way of a
protest petition, but the learned Trial Court instead of
rejecting the protest petition treat the protest petition
as a complaint case and summoned the applicants to
face the trial for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. Being
aggrieved with the summoning order passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar dated
12.08.2024, the revision was filed on the ground that
the allegation alleged are purely civil in nature,
however, the learned 1st Additional District and
Session Judge, Haridwar, rejected the revision. Now
being aggrieved, the instant petition has been
preferred under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the
applicants that the entire prosecution is vitiated on
two aspects. Firstly, in reference to the sale deed with
regard to which the complaint was made the present
applicants filed a civil suit, wherein the
respondent/complainant was the defendant and the
suit was decreed ex parte.
6. Secondly, in this FIR, the investigation was
carried out and after thorough investigation, the
closure report was filed, however, the learned Trial
Court committed an illegality by treating the protest
petition as a complaint case because there was no such
material to summon the applicants to face the trial. He
also submits that the learned Trial Court also
committed an illegality while summoning the present
applicants by ignoring this aspect that in respect of the
sale deed in question already a civil suit was filed,
which was decreed ex parte. He also pointed out that
this aspect is also being over looked by the learned
Trial Court while summoning the present applicants
that after thorough investigation, the final report was
filed. He also submits that the FIR has been lodged at a
belated stage of 15 years and during this period no
third party interest was created.
7. On the other side, Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned
AGA submits that all the arguments as advanced by
the learned counsel for the applicants are completely
the subject matter of the trial because in the pending
suit, which was filed by the present applicants, they
themselves gave an undertaking before the Civil Court
which is reflected from paragraph 12 of the ex parte
judgment and decree that there is no any case with
regard to the said sale deed and if in future if anyone
make a complaint, they are responsible for this. The
relevant extract of the order passed by the learned
Civil Judge, dated 25.08.2021, particularly paragraph
12, read as under:-
“12. इसके अित�र� वादी आस मौहम्मद �ारा
शपथ प� कागज सं० 20सी02 प�ादली पर दािखल �कया
है। िजसम� आस मौहम्मद �ारा यह सशपथ बयान �दया है
�क शपथकतार् �ारा शपथकतार् के साथ �ये बैनामे के संबंध
म� धोखाधड़ी बैनामे को िनरस्त कराने हेतुः उपरो� वाद
योिजत �कया �आ है। शपथकतार् के िव�� उ� बैनाम� के
संबंध म� कोई भी मुकदमा दजर् नह� है और य�द भिवष्य म�
होता है तो शपथकतार् उसका स्वयं िजम्मेदार होगा और
जवाबदेही करेगा।”
8. Learned AGA also submits that though the
complainant was the defendant in the civil suit, but
the suit was decreed ex parte, wherein, the applicants
gave an undertaking before the civil court that they
are responsible in future if any case is filed, now since
this is a case of impersonation, therefore, the delay in
lodging the FIR is not fatal and will not vitiate the
trial, since prima facie the learned Trial Court was
satisfied to summon the present applicants and there
is no scope of any interference.
9. Having heard the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties, and taking into consideration
the submission as above and after perusal of the
record, this Court does not find any merit in this
petition on two accounts. Firstly, the suit filed by the
applicants was decreed ex parte wherein, an
undertaking of the applicants as reflected from
paragraph 12 of the judgment and decree passed by
the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) dated
25.08.2021, passed in Original Suit No.75 of 2019, “Aas
Mohd. Vs. Arvind Kanojiya”. Secondly, it is a case of a
impersonation and merely on the ground that suit
filed by the applicants was decreed ex parte, the
proceedings will not vitiate.
10. Accordingly, the instant C528 application
dismissed being lack of merit.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
28.07.2026
Nitesh/
