Judgment Reserved on: 03.12.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 18.12.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 759 of 2024 Shivam ...Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent With Criminal Revision No. 900 of 2024 Daulat Kanwar ...Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent Presence:

Counsel for the Revisionist: Ms. Shweta Jain, Advocate. Counsel for the State: Mr. S. S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

These connected Criminal Revisions have been preferred by the Revisionists challenging the judgment and order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 360 of 2023, as well as the judgment and order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikas Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2024, whereby the Revisionists were acquitted of the charges under Sections 386, 504 and 506 IPC but were convicted under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo three years’

simple imprisonment with fine.

2. Since both the revisions arise out of the same FIR, relate to the same occurrence, involve common evidence and challenge concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, they are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The State’s case, in brief, is that the informant was facing criminal prosecution in another case involving serious offences under the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the present Revisionists, who were known to the informant, assured him that upon payment of a sum of ₹10,00,000, they would ensure that he was exonerated from the said criminal case. Acting upon such assurance, the informant allegedly paid the said amount, stated to be in the nature of a “police donation” or for exerting influence. When no such exoneration followed, the present FIR came to be lodged alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy.

4. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted, and the Revisionists were put to trial. The learned trial court, upon appreciation of evidence, acquitted the Revisionists of the charges under Sections 386, 504 and 506 IPC, but held them guilty under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by the appellate court, giving rise to the present revisions.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Learned counsel for the Revisionists, Ms. Shweta Jain, submitted that the conviction recorded under Section 420 IPC is legally unsustainable, as the State has failed to establish the foundational requirement of dishonest intention at the inception of the alleged transaction.

7. It was urged that even if the State’s case is accepted at its highest, the material on record does not disclose that the Revisionists made any false representation with the intention to deceive the informant at the time when the alleged amount was paid.

8. It was contended that the informant and the Revisionists were admittedly well acquainted and shared prior political and social association. The Revisionist Daulat Kanwar had contested elections earlier, and the informant himself claimed to have supported him financially. In such circumstances, the allegation of deception was argued to be implausible and reflective of a subsequent breakdown of relations rather than a pre-planned act of cheating.

9. Learned counsel for the Revisionist emphasised that the alleged payment of ₹10,00,000/- has been described as having been made in the name of a “police donation”, which is vague, improbable, and incapable of constituting inducement under Section 420 IPC. At the highest, the allegations disclose an unfulfilled assurance or failed expectation, which does not attract criminal liability.

10. It was further submitted that the informant himself was facing multiple serious criminal cases, and the present FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive to exert pressure or gain leverage. The possibility of false implication, it was argued