Uttarakhand High Court
29 April vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 29 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:3230
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 279 of 2024
29 April, 2025
Dr. Samrat Sharma --Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for applicant,
appeared through video conferencing.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of the present C482 application, the applicant has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, in Complaint Case No.16 of 2023 Dr. Samrat Sharma Vs. Poonam Agarwal, whereby, the application moved by the applicant was rejected on the ground that the case of the applicant is civil in nature and further the revisional order dated 24.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No.112 of 2023 Dr. Samrat Sharma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, which was also dismissed on the same ground given by learned Additional CJM, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant had a good acquaintance and interaction with respondent No.2 and they were living in a live-in relationship for about six years. In the year 2020, respondent No.2 told applicant that she is going to 1 2025:UHC:3230 start a committee of 20 people in her college, in which the share of each person will be Rs.4,000/- which would be run for 26 months and after 26 months, total Rs.1,50,000/- will be received. The applicant kept on paying Rs.5,000/- every month to respondent No.2 through Google Pay and has paid a total amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. On 18.09.2022, when the committee's term was about to come to an end, the respondent No.2 stated that she will return the money in November. While demanding the said money in November, the respondent No.2 did not return the same and put the applicant's number on block list. When the applicant went to the college of respondent No.2, he came to know that she was married to a person namely Sunil Singhal (respondent No.3). When he asked for the aforesaid money, respondent No.2 stated that she would not return the money and would trapped him in a false case if he asked for the money. Thereafter, the applicant through his advocate sent a demand notice dated 29.11.2022 by registered post to respondent No.2, which was received by respondent No.2 on 30.11.2022, but even after receiving the notice, respondent No.2 did not return the money and sent a reply to the notice on wrong facts. The applicant gave applications to the concerned police station and SSP regarding this incident, but when no action was taken, a complaint was filed in the Court requesting to summon and to punish the respondents under Section 406 IPC.
4. Thereafter, in the learned Court below the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded to prima-facie prove 2 2025:UHC:3230 that the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC is made out against the respondent No.2. Learned Additional CJM rejected the aforesaid complaint being Complaint Case No.16 of 2023 Dr. Samrat Sharma Vs. Poonam Agarwal, filed by the applicant vide judgment and order dated 08.08.2023 on the ground that the case of the applicant is civil in nature. Thereafter, the applicant filed a Criminal Revision No.112 of 2023 Dr. Samrat Sharma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, challenging the impugned order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the learned ACJM, which, too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2024 on the same ground. Thus, the applicant is before this Court by challenging both impugned orders.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has delivered the aforesaid money to the respondent No.2 in trust for a particular purpose and the respondent was bound to return the aforesaid money to the applicant. Despite the demand notice, respondent No.2 did not return the money to the applicant. Thus, the breach of trust had been committed by the respondent No.2. The Google Pay amount transmitted in the account of respondent No.2 is the clear evidence which had not been considered by both the Courts below and both the Courts below have rejected the complaint as well as the criminal revision of the applicant, without applying its mind.
6. Per contra, learned State Counsel contended that both the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders and rightly held that the offence is of civil in nature, thus, the present C482 application deserves to be dismissed. There is concurrent findings 3 2025:UHC:3230 of both the Courts against the applicant.
7. Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar has recorded its reasoning in Para 8 and 9 of the judgment and order dated 24.01.2024 and came to this conclusion that no interference was warranted in the judgment and order passed by the learned ACJM.
8. Having perused both the impugned orders and examining the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the reasoning assigned by the learned Trial Court as well as by the learned Revisional Court, is perfect and need no interference.
9. Accordingly, the present C482 application is dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 29.04.2025 PN PREETI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6a ab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, NEGI serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D 5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.04.30 16:18:00 +05'30' 4