Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 240 (UTT)

SANJEEV MEHROTRA v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2010-04-27

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2010
JUDGMENT By means of the this petition, moved Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 569 of 2005, Satish Kumar Vs. Sanjeev Mehrotra and another, relating to offences punishable under section 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C., pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one turned up on behalf of Respondent No. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner Sanjeev Mehrotra was Executive Officer with Nagar Palika Parishad, Bazpur. Petitioner No. 2 was cashier with said Nagar Palika Parishad. Respondent no. 2 Satish Kumar was safai karamchari of the Nagar Palika Parishad. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the unsatisfactory service of the respondent no. 2 he was removed from the work assigned to hm. Attention of this court is drawn to Annexure 1 to the petition, which is copy of the report made by the petitioner no. 1 to Station Officer, Police Station Bazpur, in which it is mentioned that due to unsatisfactory work Satish Kumar (respondent no. 2) was removed from service of 20.06.2005, whereafter he misbehaved and committed ‘marpeet’ with the petitioner no. 1. From the Annexure 4 to the petition it appears that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, drew proceedings under section 107 and 116 of Cr.P.C. against safai karamchari Satish Kumar. It is contended that as a counter blast, petitioner no. 2 filed a criminal complaint in question of 29.06.2005 before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, which was registered as criminal case no. 569 of 2005, on which the Magistrate summoned the petitioners to face the trial, in respect of offences punishable under section 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. vide impugned order dated 06.07.2005 (copy of Annexure 1 to the petition). 4. Having gone through the papers on record, this court is satisfied with the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the criminal complaint case in question is simply abuse of process of law on the part of the removed employee (complainant), who had committed ‘marpeet’ with the petitioners who were supervising his work. The proceedings drawn by Sub Divisional Magistrate further corroborate said fact. The proceedings drawn by Sub Divisional Magistrate further corroborate said fact. As such in the opinion of this court the proceedings of complaint in question are liable to be quashed. 5. Accordingly, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 569 of 2005, Satish Kumar Vs. Sanjeev Mehrotra and another, in respect of offences punishable under section 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C., pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, are hereby quashed.