Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/806/2025 of THAPADI DEVI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 8 July 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR/806/2025 Thapadi Devi --Revisionist Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Pankaj Semwal and Mr.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
UKHC010187212025
2026:UHC:5563 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
CRLR/806/2025 Thapadi Devi --Revisionist Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Pankaj Semwal and Mr. Krishna Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Devesh Upreti, learned counsel for the private respondents.
2. The present Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 24 of 2024, “State vs. Trilok Singh Rana and Others”, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Munsyari, District Pithoragarh, whereby the protest petition filed by the revisionist came to be dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
4. Upon consideration of the record, this Court is of the view that the matter requires judicial scrutiny on merits. The protest petition contains serious allegations, which deserve to be adjudicated in accordance with law rather than being dismissed, unless there is a deliberate and persistent default on the part of the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist
UKHC010187212025
2026:UHC:5563 submitted that neither the revisionist nor his counsel was negligent in prosecuting the protest petition. It is contended that they had remained present on almost all the dates fixed before the learned court below, except on a few occasions, and that the dismissal of the protest petition for want of prosecution has resulted in failure of justice.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the nature of the allegations involved, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be better served if the revisionist is afforded an opportunity to prosecute the protest petition on merits. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.08.2025 is liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is disposed of. The order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the learned Court below is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Court concerned with a direction to restore the protest petition to its original number and decide the same afresh on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the learned Court below shall decide the protest petition independently, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.
(Alok Mahra, J.) 08-07-2026 SB
SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE 29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.07.08 17:17:46 +05'30'