C482/1338/2012 of SHYAM SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 1338 of 2012 (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)

Shyam Singh

….…… Applicant

versus

State of Uttarakhand and Another ………. Respondents

Mr. P.K. Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Prem Kaushal, Brief Holder for the State. None is present on behalf of the respondent no.2.

U. C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant seeks to quash the summoning order dated 28.07.2012, under Sections 406, 420 of IPC passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD)/JM Roorkee, District-Haridwar in Criminal Case No.2862 of 2012 (State vs. Baljeet & others), pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (JD)/JM Roorkee, District-Haridwar.

2. It appears that the petitioner was the power of attorney holder to run the transport. The truck, in question, was being driven by Shri Baljeet Singh, driver of the said Transport. The entire allegation is that instead of 100% clinker (raw material to manufacture cement), some adulterated clinker was supplied.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the place of origin of loading of the said clinker is also owned by M/s Ambuja Cement, nonetheless the owners of said Company have deducted the loss out of the Freight Charges of the Truck, and over and above, they have also lodged the F.I.R., which culminated into the submission of impugned charge sheet.

4. Notice was issued to respondent no.2, but none has turned up on his behalf.

5. It appears that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the accused-applicant.

6. At the time of admission of present C-482 petition, this Court passed an interim order, vide order dated 20.12.2012, and stayed the criminal case initiated against applicant under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, (JD)/JM, Roorkee, District-Haridwar, till the next date of listing.

7. There seems to be substance in the contention of leaned counsel for the applicant that the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant are nothing but abuse of process of the Court.

8. It will be futile exercise to keep present petition under Section C-482 Cr.P.C. pending in this Court.

9. The Court can intervene in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330, Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, 2013 (1) SCC (Crl.) 986 and Inder Mohan Gosami and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2008) 1 SCC (Crl.) 259.

10. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed. The summoning order dated 28.07.2012, under Sections 406, 420 of IPC passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD)/JM Roorkee, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No.2862 of 2012 (State vs. Baljeet & others), pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (JD)/JM Roorkee, District-Haridwar, are hereby quashed.

11. Since present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being decided in the absence of respondent no.2, therefore, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this order, if he feels aggrieved with the same.

(U. C. Dhyani, J.)

29.06.2017