IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 178/2003 Sanjay Kumar …….Revisionist Versus State of Uttaranchal & Others ……Respondents Mr. Mohd. Matloob, Adv., i/b Mr. C.K. Sharma, Adv., for the revisionist. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, for the private respondents. 13th September, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.8.2003, passed by the Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 583/2001, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has quashed the order of cognizance dated 25.5.2001, passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Complainant Case No. 15/2001. 2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers available on record, it appears that complainant Sanjay Kumar (revisionist before this Court) is the real brother-in-law of accused no. 1 to 3 (respondents no. 2 to 4), and son-in-law of accused no. 4 Ramesh Chand (respondent no. 5). Rajendra Kumar, accused respondent no. 5 is some relative of other co-accused, stated above. The case of the complainant is that on 20.3.2001, at about 8 am, when he was coming to Haridwar from his village, he boarded a Metador vehicle. Incidentally, the accused persons also boarded the same vehicle to reach their destination at Haridwar. An altercation took place between Sanjay Kumar and the accused persons. Accused persons bet Sanjay Kumar with kicks and fists and also by batons. This incident was witnessed by one Shri Kala and Devendra. Sanjay Kumar got 2 himself medically examined at Haridwar and thereafter filed the complaint on 24.3.2001. 3. Complainant got himself examined under Section 200 CrPC and in support of his averments, PW1 Rakesh and PW2 Deshraj were examined under Section 202 CrPC. Keeping in view the averments made in the complaint and statements of complainant and the witnesses, the learned Magistrate passed the order of cognizance and summoned the accused persons to face the trial for the offences punishable under Section 323, 147, 504, 506 IPC. This order was challenged in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, who set aside the order of cognizance vide the impugned judgment and order dated 13.8.2003. Feeling aggrieved, complainant Sanjay Kumar has come up in revision before this Court. 4. Having considered the pros and cons and on going through the impugned orders, it is apparent that Smt. Sunita , wife of Sajay Kumar, had launched the prosecution against him under Section 498A, 504, 506, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She also initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance. As a counterblast to these proceedings launched against the revisionist Sanjay Kumar, the instant complaint was filed by him against the accused persons, who are his close relatives, as stated above. This Court is in full agreement with the views and findings of the learned Sessions Judge as indicated by him in the impugned judgment and order passed by him. Learned Sessions Judge has observed that the accused persons belong to village Sultanpur Kunhari and they do not need to come to Luxar first and board the same vehicle in order to reach Haridwar. Likewise, the complainant Sanjay Kumar had also no need to come to Luxar first to hire a transport for reaching Haridwar. Otherwise also, it is very 3 unbelievable that Sanjay Kumar and the rest of the accused persons had any occasion to board the same Metador vehicle to reach Haridwar, particularly in view of the fact that a number of litigations were pending between them. 5. Furthermore, the injury report filed by the complainant reveals very superficial injuries and cannot be believed, and it can easily be manipulated. 6. For the reasons stated above, the order of cognizance was very cryptic, which was rightly quashed by the learned Sessions Judge vide his impugned judgment and order. 7. In the result, the revision, being meritless, is hereby dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 13.9.2011 Prabodh