C482/476/2010 of MANGEY RAM AND ORS Vs PADAM SINGH

C-482 Petition No. 476 of 2010

U.C.Dhyani, J.

Mr. Sushil Vashisth, Advocate, present

for applicants.

None is present for the respondent, despite

service of notice.

By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the summoning order dated 30.01.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of Misc. Case No. 3514 of 2009, Padam Singh vs. Mangey Ram, under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are public servants. They are revenue officials. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners were discharging their public duties while surveying public path in village Shikarpur within the limits of Police Station Manglore. It is contended that complainant Padam Singh and others obstructed the petitioners in discharging their duties. Consequently, they lodged FIR against Padam Singh and two of his companions. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as counterblast the present criminal complaint was filed by the complainant (respondent), which is abuse of process of law. Since the respondent has not turned up before this Court despite service of notice upon him, therefore, it appears that he is not interested in prosecuting the applicant.

There seems to be substance in the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that if criminal proceedings are allowed to be continued against present applicants, the same will amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

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

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.

The petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

is allowed. As consequence thereof, the summoning order dated 30.01.2010 as well as the entire proceedings of Misc. Case No. 3514 of 2009, Padam Singh vs. Mangey Ram, under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar, are hereby quashed.

Since present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being decided in the absence of private respondent, therefore, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this order, if he feels aggrieved with the same.

(U.C.Dhyani, J.)

20.06.2017

Kaushal