Shri Manoj Kumar ......Revisionist v. State of Uttarakhand and ors

his father, late Shri Mohan Lal, along with one Ram Kumar, purchased a parcel of land admeasuring approximately 7476 square feet situated at Jhabrera by a registered sale deed dated 16.08.1966. During their lifetime, the purchasers mutually divided the property, as a result whereof an area of approximately 3738 square feet fell to the share of Shri Mohan Lal.

3. Upon the demise of Shri Mohan Lal, the said portion is stated to have devolved upon the Revisionist and his two brothers. According to the Revisionist, a part of this property, comprising a godown, two shops, Criminal Revision No. 794 of 2025, Shri Manoj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 1 Ashish Naithani J. and adjoining vacant land, was permissively allowed to be used by Respondent No. 2, the uncle of the Revisionist, and his sons, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, owing to close family relations and on repeated requests made by them for earning their livelihood.

4. It is the case of the Revisionist that he and his brothers were residing at Roorkee, whereas the property was situated at Jhabrera, and on account of this distance, coupled with family trust and cordial relations, they did not actively supervise the property for a considerable period.

5. The Revisionist further asserts that in the year 2024, when he required funds on account of medical treatment, he requested the respondents to vacate the property. At that stage, the respondents allegedly refused to vacate and asserted ownership over the property.

6. Upon making enquiries, the Revisionist claims to have discovered that Respondent No. 2 had executed a registered gift deed dated 02.02.2015 in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in respect of the disputed property, despite, according to the Revisionist, having no right, title, or authority to do so.

7. The Revisionist thereafter submitted representations to the local police authorities, including the Station House Officer, Jhabrera, and higher police officers, alleging commission of offences. As no action was taken, he approached the court of the Judicial Magistrate by filing an application under Section 175(3) BNSS seeking a direction for registration of an FIR and investigation.

8. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in law in dismissing the application under Section 175(3) BNSS without appreciating that the allegations disclosed clear ingredients of cognizable offences, particularly cheating and fraud.

9. It was contended that Respondent No. 2 had no semblance of title or authority over the property and yet executed a registered gift deed in favour of his sons, which itself demonstrated dishonest intention and Criminal Revision No. 794 of 2025, Shri Manoj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 2 Ashish Naithani J. deception. According to learned counsel, such conduct could not have been brushed aside as a mere civil dispute.

10. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to consider that the execution of the gift deed was concealed from the Revisionist for several years, and that the respondents continued to occupy the property under the guise of permissive possession, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Revisionist and wrongful gain to themselves.

11. It was also argued that the mutation entries, sale deed of 1966, and other revenue records placed on record supported the claim of the Revisionist and were sufficient to warrant at least a police investigation, rather than outright rejection of the application.

12. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the learned Magistrate exceeded the permissible limits at the stage of Section 175(3) BNSS by effectively adjudicating disputed questions of title and branding the matter as purely civil, which, according to him, amounted to pre-judging the issue.

13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned order and submitted that the learned Magistrate had rightly examined the allegations and the police report, and correctly concluded that the dispute revolved around ownership, possession, and validity of documents relating to immovable property.

14. It was contended on behalf of the State that the pleadings of the Revisionist themselves disclosed a long-standing civil dispute between close relatives, and that the allegations did not contain the necessary particulars to constitute any cognizable offence so as to justify a direction for registration of an FIR.

16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The scope of interference in a criminal revision preferred under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is Criminal Revision No. 794 of 2025, Shri Manoj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 3 Ashish Naithani J. limited. The revisional court does not sit as a court of appeal to reappreciate facts or substitute its own view. Still, it is required to examine whether the order under challenge suffers from jurisdictional error, patent illegality, perversity, or material irregularity resulting in miscarriage of justice.

17. The application moved by the Revisionist before the court below was under Section 175(3) BNSS, seeking a direction for registration of an FIR and investigation. At this stage, the Magistrate is required to assess whether the averments in the application, taken at face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence warranting police investigation.

18. From a careful reading of the application and the documents relied upon by the Revisionist, it is evident that the substratum of the dispute pertains to competing claims of ownership and possession over immovable property, arising out of a registered sale deed of 1966, alleged permissive possession, mutation entries, and the execution of a registered gift deed in the year 2015.

19. The allegations levelled by the Revisionist essentially require adjudication on questions as to whether Respondent No. 2 had any right, title, or authority over the property, whether the possession of the respondents was permissive or otherwise, and whether the gift deed executed in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is valid or void. These issues lie squarely within the domain of civil law and cannot be conclusively determined in criminal proceedings.

20. Significantly, the pleadings of the Revisionist themselves disclose that the property was allowed to be used by close relatives on account of family relations and trust, and that the dispute surfaced only when the Revisionist sought recovery of possession several years later. The execution of a registered gift deed in 2015, and the existence of revenue Criminal Revision No. 794 of 2025, Shri Manoj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 4 Ashish Naithani J. entries, further underscore that the controversy revolves around civil rights and documentary title.

21. The learned Magistrate has recorded a clear finding that even if the allegations in the application are accepted in their entirety, the essential ingredients of any cognizable offence are not prima facie made out. The impugned order also notes the absence of specific particulars regarding the alleged threats or abuses, such as date, time, and place, which further weakens the criminal colour sought to be given to the dispute.

22. This Court finds that the learned Magistrate has applied the correct legal test, considered the police report, evaluated the material placed on record, and has not ventured into any impermissible adjudication of disputed facts. The conclusion that the matter is essentially civil in nature cannot be said to be perverse or legally untenable.

23. The mere existence of a civil dispute does not ipso facto bar criminal proceedings. However, where the allegations predominantly disclose a civil wrong, and the criminal process is sought to be invoked to exert pressure or secure advantage in a property dispute, the Magistrate is justified in declining to direct registration of an FIR.

24. In the present case, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The Criminal Revision is dismissed. ORDER The judgment and order dated 22.08.2025, passed by the Judicial Magistrate / Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Roorkee, District Haridwar, in Misc. Case No. 21 of 2025, rejecting the application filed Criminal Revision No. 794 of 2025, Shri Manoj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 5 Ashish Naithani J. by the Revisionist under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is affirmed. Dated:24.11.2025 NR/ (Ashish Naithani J.) Criminal Revision No. 794 of 2025, Shri Manoj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- 6 Ashish Naithani J.