Uttarakhand High Court
SPLA/120/2026 of MEENU AGARWAL Vs VINAY SINGH BISHT on 9 June 2026
e Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS 2026:UHC:4571 SPLA No.120 of 2026 CRLA No.343 of 2026 “Smt. Meenu Agarwal Vs. Sh. Vinay Singh Bisht” Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 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.
SL. No. Dat e Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
2026:UHC:4571
SPLA No.120 of 2026 CRLA No.343 of 2026 “Smt. Meenu Agarwal Vs. Sh. Vinay Singh Bisht” Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant Smt. Meenu Agarwal, against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, dated 08.04.2026, in Criminal Case No.993 of 2018, “Smt. Meenu Agarwal Vs. Sh. Vinay Singh Bisht, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused have failed to appreciate the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court, and the judgment is based upon conjecture and surmises.
4. He further submits that the learned Trial Court committed mistake in law by observing that the dispute in between the parties appears to be civil in nature rather the case in hand itself reveals that it is a case of cheating.
5. I have gone through with the judgment passed by the Trial Court, on perusal of which, it reveals that the Trial Court has dealt with all the evidences as adduced by the parties and I do not find any illegality in the order of the Trial Court in acquitting the respondent/accused.
6. The instant appeal is against an order of acquittal and there is a very limited and restricted scope of interference, and I do not find any patent perversity in the judgment by the Trial Court. Even, I do not find that the judgment is based on misleading of evidence or leads to miscarriage of justice. Hence, the instant leave to appeal is dismissed in limine being devoid of merit.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
09.06.2026 Nitesh/