Uttarakhand High Court
Daleep Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 30 July, 2026
UKHC010057402018
2026:UHC:6641
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.847 of 2018
Daleep Singh .... Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ......... Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Present:-
Mr. Kailash Chandra Tewari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned AGA for the State.
Mr. Sandeep Adhikari, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)
By means of the present criminal
miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has sought
quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 33 of
2016, Pushkar Singh vs. Daleep Singh, under Sections
323, 354, and 506 Cr.P.C., pending before the Court of
the Judicial Magistrate, Dwarahat, District Almora, as
well as the summoning order dated 27/3/2018 passed in
the said case by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate,
Dwarahat, District Almora.
1
UKHC010057402018
2026:UHC:6641
2. It is the case of the applicant that both the
complainant and the opposite party No. 2 are residents of
the same village, Sungari, Patwari Circle Dhanshyari,
District Almora. A dispute regarding the demarcation of
the land (courtyard) was going on between the parties,
and the complainant claimed ownership over the
disputed land. However, later, in the presence of the
Supervisor Kanoongo, the parties settled the said
dispute, but the complainant and his family members
could not keep themselves from holding a grudge against
the accused.
3. It is the case of the applicant that the
complainant/respondent No. 2 assaulted the applicant
and wrongfully confined him in his residence. In this
regard, the applicant lodged an FIR against the
complainant/respondent No. 2. As a counterblast to the
case filed by the applicant, the complainant tried to make
a false complaint against the applicant, Daleep Singh, for
which he filed a complaint before the SDM,
Chaukhutia/Bhikiyasain, on 11/7/2014. On the said
complaint, the SDM, Bhikiyasain, directed the Revenue
Inspector, Chaukhutia, to inquire into the matter.
4. In compliance with the order of the SDM,
Bhikiyasain, the Revenue Sub-Inspector, Dhanshyari,
2
UKHC010057402018
2026:UHC:6641
submitted his report on 15th July 2014 to the aforesaid
authority, stating therein that the complaint was nothing
but a mere endeavour to save himself from the offences
committed by him against the applicant. Thereafter, on
19/7/2014, the complainant/respondent No. 2 filed a
complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the
Judicial Magistrate, Dwarahat, District Almora, repeating
the same averments as made in the previous complaint
filed before the SDM, Chaukhutia/Bhikiyasain, with a
prayer to direct the Patwari, Dhanshyari, to register a
criminal case and conduct an investigation. On this, the
Judicial Magistrate directed the office to register it as a
Miscellaneous Case and issued a direction to file the
report by 28/8/2014.
5. In compliance of the order of the Judicial
Magistrate, Dwarahat, the Revenue Sub-Inspector,
Dhanshyari, submitted a detailed report on 28/8/2014
before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Dwarahat,
District Almora. On the said complaint, the Judicial
Magistrate, Dwarahat, took cognizance against the
applicant, Daleep Singh, in Criminal Case No. 1 of 2014,
under Sections 354, 504, and 506 of the IPC on
22/11/2014 and issued summons under Section 61 of
the Cr.P.C. against the applicant, directing his
3
UKHC010057402018
2026:UHC:6641
appearance before the Court on 24/4/2015. Against the
said order, Criminal Misc. Application No. 475 of 2015,
filed under Section 482, was pending before this Court,
but the aforesaid application became infructuous as
Criminal Case No. 1 of 2014, Pushkar Singh vs. Daleep
Singh, under Sections 354, 504, and 506 IPC, was
dismissed for non-prosecution. This fact has been
categorically mentioned by the complainant in his
complaint dated 30th March 2016.
6. It is further the case of the applicant that,
instead of filing an appeal/revision against the dismissal
order, the complainant again filed a complaint against
the applicant, Daleep Singh, by repeating the same
allegations as mentioned in the earlier complaint before
the Judicial Magistrate, Dwarahat, District Almora, on
30th March 2016, stating therein that a complaint
regarding the same incident had already been filed before
the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Dwarahat, District
Almora but was dismissed for non-prosecution. The
Judicial Magistrate entertained the said complaint of the
complainant but dismissed it under Section 203 of the
Cr.P.C. vide order dated 17/11/2016.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated
17/11/2016, the complainant filed a criminal revision
4
UKHC010057402018
2026:UHC:6641
before the Sessions Judge, Almora, and the Additional
Sessions Judge, Almora, vide order dated 2nd May 2017,
allowed Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2017, set aside the
order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dwarahat, dated
17/11/2016 passed in Criminal Case No. 33 of 2016,
Pushkar Singh vs. Daleep Singh, and directed the
concerned Magistrate to re-enquire into the matter and
pass appropriate orders in accordance with Sections 200
and 202 of the Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the order dated 2nd
May 2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Almora, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dwarahat,
District Almora, again heard the matter on the same
grounds and evidence, took cognizance against the
applicant in Criminal Case No. 33 of 2016, Pushkar Singh
vs. Daleep Singh, under Sections 323, 354, and 506 of
the IPC, and issued the summoning order dated
27/3/2018.
8. Assailing the aforesaid summoning order dated
27/3/2018 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case
No. 33 of 2016 pending before the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate, Dwarahat, District Almora, the learned
counsel for the applicant submitted that both the courts
below entertained the second complaint despite being
aware of the fact that the earlier complaint, which had
5
UKHC010057402018
2026:UHC:6641
been filed on the same grounds, had already been
dismissed for non-prosecution, whereas the second
complaint could not have been entertained on the same
grounds arising out of the same incident.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant, while
referring to the rejoinder affidavit, submitted that the
averment in the complaint that the earlier complaint was
dismissed for non-prosecution was, in fact, incorrect.
Referring to Annexure No. RA-1 of the rejoinder affidavit
filed on behalf of the applicant, learned counsel
submitted that the averment regarding the dismissal of
the complaint for non-prosecution is absolutely false. In
fact, the complainant/respondent No. 2 had not pressed
his earlier complaint bearing Miscellaneous Criminal
Case No. 120 of 2014, Pushkar Singh vs. Daleep Singh.
10. Perusal of the said order dated 29/4/2015
would show that the complainant had made a file note on
the order sheet of the said case stating that he did not
want any further proceedings in the case, and on the
basis of the said endorsement made on the order sheet,
the Judicial Magistrate, Dwarahat, District Almora,
closed the proceedings of the said case.
6
UKHC010057402018
2026:UHC:6641
11. Referring to Section 257 of the Cr.P.C., learned
counsel for the applicant submitted that since the effect
of the withdrawal of the complaint by the
complainant/respondent No. 2 would be that of acquittal,
once the complaint was dismissed as not
pressed/withdrawn, the applicant stood acquitted. On
the same set of allegations for the same offences, the
applicant cannot be vexed twice. He has placed reliance
upon Section 300 of the Cr.P.C., which provides that a
person once convicted or acquitted cannot be tried for the
same offence. He submitted that the said section enacts
the well-known principle of criminal jurisprudence that
no person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same
offence. The case of the applicant is also covered by the
principle of double jeopardy, as enshrined in both Article
20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the
Cr.P.C.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that both the trial court as well as the revisional court
erred in overlooking this important and cardinal principle
of law. The passing of the impugned order would result in
double jeopardy, and the impugned orders are illegal and
not sustainable in the eyes of law.
7
UKHC010057402018
2026:UHC:6641
13. Before proceeding further, it is also relevant to
mention that the Rajaswa Up-Nirikshak of Dhanshyari,
vide report dated 15th July 2014 addressed to the Up-
Zila Adhikari, Chaukhutia, District Almora, submitted a
report stating that on 7/7/2014, Daleep Singh, son of
Ganga Singh, could not be found despite being searched
for by his family members. Thereafter, on the night of
7/7/2014, the applicant’s father, Ganga Singh, contacted
him over the phone and informed him that Pushkar
Singh and others had committed marpeet with his son
and that he did not know where they had taken him. On
receiving this information, he, along with PRD personnel,
reached Village Sungari on 8/7/2014 and recovered the
applicant, Daleep Singh, from the room adjacent to the
shop of Pushkar Singh. Looking at his condition, he was
taken to the Community Health Center, Chaukhutia,
where he was provided treatment.
14. Thereafter, the applicant, Daleep Singh,
submitted a written report, which was registered as
Criminal Case No. 1 of 2014 under Sections 323, 504,
506, and 342 of the IPC against the accused persons,
namely, Pushkar Singh, Shishupal Singh, and Kripal
Singh, and an investigation was conducted. It is further
stated in the report dated 15/7/2014 that the accused,
8
UKHC010057402018
2026:UHC:6641
Pushkar Singh, with the intention of saving himself,
submitted a false report against the applicant, Daleep
Singh.
15. In the aforesaid background, and also since
the earlier complaint submitted by respondent No. 2 had
not been pressed and would have the effect of acquittal of
the accused, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs.
Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein,
in paragraph 102, Illustration 7, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has categorically held that in cases of malicious
complaints to seek vengeance, the High Court can
exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to
secure the ends of justice.
16 In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, it is borne out from the record, particularly from
the report of the Rajaswa Up-Nirikshak, Dhanshyari,
dated 15th July 2014, that the applicant, Daleep Singh,
had already lodged an FIR against respondent No.
2/complainant and others on account of marpeet
committed by respondent No. 2 and others on 7/7/2014.
Hence, it is very clear that the complaint itself was filed
as a counterblast. Therefore, the case of the applicant is
9
UKHC010057402018
2026:UHC:6641
also covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra).
17. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2
submitted that the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the applicant are misconceived. An offence is
made out against the applicant; hence, the Criminal
Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to
be dismissed.
18. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length,
and after having gone through the record, it is evident
that the complaint appears to have been filed by the
complainant/respondent No. 2 as a counterblast. Hence,
the case is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal
(supra). Further, after not pressing/withdrawing the
earlier complaint, which had the effect of acquittal under
the provisions of Section 257 Cr.P.C., no fresh complaint
on the same set of facts could have been filed. It would
have the effect of acquittal of the applicant.
19. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 33 of 2016, Pushkar
10
UKHC010057402018
2026:UHC:6641
Singh vs. Daleep Singh, under Sections 323, 354, and
506 IPC, pending before the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate, Dwarahat, District Almora, as well as the
summoning order dated 27/3/2018 passed therein by
the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Dwarahat, District
Almora, are hereby quashed.
20. The Criminal Misc. Application is accordingly
allowed.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
30.07.2026
BS
BALWANT
Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2e
acbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001,
SINGH
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE518
5F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT
SINGH
Date: 2026.08.01 12:10:48 +05’30’
11
