Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 570 (UTT)

Yogesh Bhardwaj v. Dan Singh Rana

2013-09-02

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. The applicant, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., seeks to quash the impugned summoning order dated 03.12.2008, passed by learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, in criminal case no. 1049 of 2008, Dan Singh Rana vs Yogesh Bhardwaj, under Section 500 of IPC as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case. 2) Complainant Dan Singh Rana (respondent herein) filed a criminal complaint case against accused Yogesh Bhardwaj (applicant herein) for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. After recording statements under Section 200 and 202 of Cr. P.C., learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, vide order dated 03.12.2008 summoned the accused-applicant to face the trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. was preferred by the accused-applicant. 3) A very perusal of the impugned order reveals that the summoning order is a bald order. No reasons were assigned as to whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused-respondent, or not? The impugned order is contrary to the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court as laid down in GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust vs India Infoline Ltd., (2013) 4 SCC 505 . The impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 4) But there are other grounds also, which call for interference in the impugned order. Prima facie, no ingredients of offence under Section 499 of IPC (punishable under Section 500 of IPC) are made out against accused-applicant. 5) On 10.09.2007, respondent gave a confessional statement to the applicant, in the presence of three witnesses, a copy of which is enclosed as Annexure No. 1 to the present petition. In Annexure No. 1, respondent admitted that he used the Veterinary Hospital premises unauthorizedly for womanizing. He was repentant over his act and tendered apology to the applicant. The applicant informed the same to Deputy Director, vide Annexure No. 2 (copy enclosed with the present petition). The applicant recommended for the transfer of the respondent in public interest. Accordingly, respondent was attached to Veterinary Hospital, Pratappur, vide order dated 17.10.2007 (copy enclosed as Annexure no. 3 to the present petition). The applicant informed the same to Deputy Director, vide Annexure No. 2 (copy enclosed with the present petition). The applicant recommended for the transfer of the respondent in public interest. Accordingly, respondent was attached to Veterinary Hospital, Pratappur, vide order dated 17.10.2007 (copy enclosed as Annexure no. 3 to the present petition). Subsequent thereto, Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry gave a warning to the respondent for his misbehaviour with the Veterinary Officer. An adverse entry was given to the respondent in Annual Confidential Remarks of the year 2007-08 (copy enclosed as Annexure –10 to the present petition). The same was served upon the respondent at his village Jogither Nagla, Tehsil Khatima address. The contention of the respondent was that since Annual Confidential Remarks were read by his family members, therefore, his reputation was harmed in their estimation. 6) Nowhere it was alleged that the ACR or any of the correspondence addressed to the respondent was published by the applicant. Even the ingredients of the complaint, taken as a whole, do not constitute ‘defamation’. More so, whatever the applicant did, was done by him in the course of discharge of his official duty. 7) When, prima facie, no offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC is made out against the accused-applicant, therefore, the same calls for interference in the impugned judgment and order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 8) The application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned summoning order dated 03.12.2008, passed by learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, in criminal case no. 1049 of 2008, Dan Singh Rana vs Yogesh Bhardwaj, under Section 500 of IPC as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are hereby quashed.