SANJAY MEHTA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2021-12-233
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on December 07,2021

SANJAY MEHTA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVT. OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.C.KHULBE,J. - (1.)A writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the 1st Addl. Session Judge Nainital in Criminal Revision No.156 of 2019 dtd. 4/3/2020 and the order dtd. 21/6/2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in Misc. Application No.96 of 2019.
(2.)A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to register a FIR u/s 427, 452, 379, 392, 395, 504, 506 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the C.J.M., Nainital, which was registered as Misc. Application No.96 of 2019; the concerned C.J.M. after hearing the petitioner, dismissed the application on 21/6/2019; thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.156 of 2019 before the 1st Addl. Session Judge, Nainital; the concerned court after hearing the parties dismissed the revision on 4/3/2020 and affirmed the impugned order passed by the C.J.M., Nainital. Aggrieved by the impugned orders, the present revision is preferred.
(3.)It is the only allegation filed in the application under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. that the petitioner is the tenant situated at Mall Road, Nainital while the owner of the property is the respondent no.3-Gopal Mehrotra; when the petitioner was out of station and had gone Delhi for the treatment of his mother, the respondent no.3 barged into the property and broke open the lock and looted the money and other household items; when the petitioner reached at Nainital on 5/6/2019, he came to know of the aforesaid incident; thereafter, the petitioner has received threatening calls, even from the Police Station.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.