HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 6 of 2005 Bhaskar Chandra Brijwasi, S/o Sri Durga Dutt Brijwasi, R/o 6/130, Talli Bamori, Nawabi Road, Haldwani, District Nainital. ----Applicant/Revisionist. Versus Sanjay Talwar and 9 others. ------- Respondents Sri Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, None for the private respondents. Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. Dated: 13th May 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision u/s 397/402 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) has been directed against the order dated 14.01.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital in Criminal Case no.02/2005 Bhaskar Chandra Brijwasi vs. Sanjay Talwar & others, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate refused to register a criminal case against the respondent nos. 1 to 9 and one Prasunna Pandey. 2. I have heard Sri Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Harish Pujari, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. None is present for the private respondent nos. 1 to 9. 3. In brief the facts of the case are that the revisionist/ complainant filed an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court below against the private respondent nos. 1 to 9 and one Prasunna Pandey with the averments inter-alia, that he had to 2 remain present on 07.01.2005 before the office of the Lokayukt Uttarakhand, Dehradun for arguments in a P.I.L. pending there and for attending the proceedings he was going to Dehradu on 06.01.2005 at about 7:00 a.m. and just he reached at the Canal Road, near Malla Gorakhpur, Haldwani the respondent Sanjay Talwar, Rajesh Sarkar, Ram Singh Mehra, Parash Nath Singh, Krishna Kumar Gupta and Anupam Gupta came in a Maruti Car which was without any number plate and they threatened him saying that if he would go to Dehradun then he will face dire consequences. The accused persons also told that they are in protection of one Cabinet Minister and one senior Police Officer. Ignoring them, when he proceeded further, then the accused persons in isolation had slapped him, they captured his shit and torn it. In the P.I.L. no. 879/2001 filed by him before this High Court and one before the Lokayukt, Uttarakhand he prayed to evict the encroachers and land mafias who have encroached upon the NAZOOL Land at Haldwani worth crores of rupees and for taking action against those guilty Public Servants who had misused their chair, therefore the land mafias and encroachers had a grudge against him. The accused had defamed the revisionist by publishing abusive languages against him in Kumaon Times News Paper. The complainant has every apprehension of his life and his family members, because inspite of various complaints, no any action was taken against the accused persons. On hearing on the application of the revisionist/complainant moved by him u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani and after obtaining report from Police Station Haldwani, in lieu thereof, the learned Court below, satisfying with the report of P.S. Haldwani, did not find any offence cognizable by the Court therefore, while rejecting the application of the revisionist vide his order dated 14.01.2005 has refused to register any case against the accused/respondent nos. 1 to 9. Aggrieved with this order, the revisionist has preferred the instant revision. 3 4. The order impugned has been assailed on the ground that the Court below failed to appreciate the entire evidence led by the revisionist in support of his complaint and the Court below has believed the report submitted by the police concerned while passing the order impugned. As in the police report it is clearly shown that the revisionist has earlier made several complainants against the Senior Officer and Administrators, hence such report cannot be believed. 5. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order itself reveals that the Court below before passing the order impugned had called report from Police Station Haldwani in connection with the complaint submitted by the revisionist, in which it was reported that during the process of investigation, no such case alleged by the revisionist/complainant on 06.01.2005 was found to be proved. In regard to the respondent Ram Singh it came to know that brother of the revisionist-Bhaskar Brijwasi had lodged a report against Ram Singh and as a counter blast Ram Singh also lodged a report against the brother of the revisionist, in which a charge sheet has been submitted. It is further reported that the revisionist had filed P.I.L. in regard to the encroachment on the NAZOOL Land against many persons. It is also true that in regard to the image of the revisionist a news was published in the news paper, but no offence is made out against Sanjay Talwar and others making endanger life of the revisionist. The revisionist is habitual in lodging complaints before the concerned Officers and Courts against different persons for encroaching upon the NAZOOL Land. The charges levelled in the application have been shown in exaggeration. Satisfying with the report of the Police Station Haldwani, the Court below passed the order impugned which is fully justified and does not require interference by this Court. 6. Otherwise also, on perusal of the record and after going through the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate dated 4 14.01.2005, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned order. The revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) NCM: