BEENA SAJWAN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010192292026

2026:UHC:9950

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS


C528/2384/2026


Beena Sajwan
--Applicant

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Nivesh Bahuguna, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Himanshu Sain and Ms.
Meenakshi Sharma, learned Brief
Holders for the State.
3. Present C-528 application has
been filed to quash the notice/order
dated 03.10.2026 passed under Section
131 of B.N.S.S. in Criminal Case No.70
of 2026 and the entire proceedings of
the instant case being tried under
Section 126/135 of B.N.S.S. pending
before the court of learned Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Tehri, District
Tehri Garhwal.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the applicant is
residing at House No.39/04, New Tehri,
District Tehri Garhwal, and an Ashram
is also situated in the vicinity of her
residence, which is being managed by
the private respondent in the capacity
of Manager. He would further submit
that, under the garb of the said

UKHC010192292026

2026:UHC:9950

Ashram, its officials have illegally
encroached upon a public
pathway/public property by
constructing a tin shed, thereby
causing inconvenience to the local
residents, including children and senior
citizens.
5. He would further submit that
aggrieved by the aforesaid
encroachment, the applicant, along
with other residents of the locality,
submitted a written complaint dated
22.06.2026 before the District
Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal; that,
pursuant thereto, vide order dated
24.06.2026, the District Magistrate
constituted a committee comprising the
Deputy Managing Director,
Rehabilitation, New Tehri; Tehsildar,
Tehri; Executive Engineer, Nagar
Palika, New Tehri; and In-charge
Inspector, Kotwali, New Tehri, to
examine the matter and take
appropriate action in accordance with
law.
6. Learned counsel would further
submit that, owing to personal grudge
and with a mala fide intention to
retaliate against the applicant, the
private respondent submitted a
complaint dated 13.07.2026 containing
false and frivolous allegations against
the applicant and her husband. He
would further submit that a detailed
inquiry was conducted into the said
complaint, wherein it was found that

UKHC010192292026

2026:UHC:9950

no offence was made out against the
applicant and that no police action was
warranted, as the dispute was
essentially civil in nature, however,
despite the aforesaid inquiry report, the
Senior Sub-Inspector/Investigating
Officer, Kotwali, Tehri, District Tehri
Garhwal, submitted a challani report
dated 18.09.2026 against the
applicant, without there being any
sufficient basis for the same.
Thereafter, on the basis of the said
report, proceedings were initiated
against the applicant before the learned
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehri, who
issued the impugned notice/order
dated 03.10.2026, calling upon the
applicant to show cause as to why she
should not be directed to execute a
personal bond of ₹ 25,000/- along with
two sureties of the like amount for
maintaining peace and public
tranquillity and for good behaviour for
a period of one year.
7. Learned counsel would also
submit that the applicant challenged
the aforesaid notice/order dated
03.10.2026 before the learned District
and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, by
way of a criminal revision; however, the
same was dismissed as not
maintainable on the ground that the
impugned order was interlocutory in
nature and, therefore, not amenable to
revisional jurisdiction. He would submit
that the proceedings initiated against

UKHC010192292026

2026:UHC:9950

the applicant are wholly unwarranted
and liable to be quashed.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel
would vehemently oppose the present
C-528 application and support the
proceedings initiated against the
applicant.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for
the applicant, on instructions, would
submit that the applicant does not
press the present application on merits
at this stage and may be permitted to
submit her reply/objections to the
show-cause notice before the learned
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who may
thereafter consider the same and
proceed further in accordance with law.
10. Having considered the
submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the material available on
record, this Court is of the view that the
applicant may avail the opportunity of
submitting her reply/objections to the
show-cause notice before the learned
Magistrate. Accordingly, the applicant
is permitted to submit her
reply/objections to the notice/order
dated 03.10.2026 within a period of two
weeks from today.
11. The learned Sub-Divisional
Magistrate concerned shall consider the
reply/objections so submitted by the
applicant and pass an appropriate
order, after affording due opportunity of
hearing to the applicant, strictly in

UKHC010192292026

2026:UHC:9950

accordance with law. It is further
clarified that the proceedings under
Section 135 of the BNSS shall be
conducted in accordance with the
procedure prescribed therein, and the
question as to whether the applicant is
required to furnish security under
Section 136 of the BNSS shall be
decided by the learned Magistrate on
the basis of the material and evidence
available on record.
12. It is also clarified that the mere
issuance of the show-cause notice shall
not, by itself, be construed as a
direction requiring the applicant to
furnish the proposed bond and
sureties. Any direction for furnishing
security during the pendency of the
inquiry shall be governed by the
statutory requirements under Section
135(3) of the BNSS.
14. With the aforesaid observations and
directions, the present C-528
application stands disposed of.
15. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.


(Alok Mahra, J.)
29.10.2026
Mamta