Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 688 (UTT)

Surendra Chaddha v. Kishan Maurya

2013-10-29

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT : U. C. Dhyani, J. 1. The applicants, by means of present Application under Section 482 Cr. P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 29.01.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.1066 of 2009 titled as Kishan Maurya vs. Surendra Chaddha & another under Sections 323, 392, 427, 504 & 506 IPC. The applicants also seek to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case pending before the said court. 2. Complainant (respondent herein) filed a criminal complaint case against the accused-applicants in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. Respondent complainant entered into the witness-box under Section 200 Cr. P.C. Ikrar Ahmad and Kundan Lal Saxena were examined under Section 202 Cr. P.C. During the course of enquiry, learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, vide order dated 19.12.2009, directed the S.O., Pant Nagar to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. 3. The S.O., Pant Nagar submitted a report on 08.01.2010 which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The S.O., Pant Nagar reported that since litigation was pending between the rival parties, therefore they cast aspersions on each other. It was inferred by S.O., Pant Nagar that no ingredient of any offence was made out during the course of enquiry. No assault or loot took place as alleged by the complainant, who also did not bother to submit any complaint in the police station concerned. But inspite of such report of S.O., Pant Nagar, accused-applicants were summoned by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 392, 427, 504 & 506 IPC on the basis of the statements under Sections 200 & 202 Cr. P.C., vide order dated 29.01.2010. Aggrieved against the same, the present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was filed by the accused-applicants. 4. Notice was issued to the complainant. The same was served personally upon him, but none appeared on his behalf to oppose the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. No counter affidavit is filed by respondent. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the respondent was a power of attorney holder of applicant no.1. On 04.06.2009, applicant no.1 cancelled the power of attorney executed by him in favour of respondent on 06.10.2006 and 28.02.2008. P.C. No counter affidavit is filed by respondent. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the respondent was a power of attorney holder of applicant no.1. On 04.06.2009, applicant no.1 cancelled the power of attorney executed by him in favour of respondent on 06.10.2006 and 28.02.2008. Applicant no.1 served a notice upon the respondent stating therein that he has cancelled the power of attorney executed in his favour. Inspite of the cancellation of power of attorney, respondent continued to contest the cases on behalf of applicant no.1 without authority of law. The respondent was annoyed on cancellation of such power of attorney and, therefore, he filed the present complaint case, which is an abuse of the process of the court. 6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicant no.1 is a retired Lieutenant Colonel and applicant no.2 is his daughter. She was married on 27.11.2009 at Jaipur and it is difficult to imagine that she would come to Rudrapur and commit such a crime on 01.12.2009. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants receives support from the report dated 08.01.2010 of S.O., Pant Nagar that no such incident, as alleged, ever took place and also that no such incident was reported by the complainant (respondent herein) in the police station concerned. 8. The complaint filed by respondent against the present applicants smacks of vindictiveness / revenge, in as much as the applicant no.1 withdrew the power of attorney executed in his favour. Thus, the possibility cannot be ruled out that due to annoyance the respondent filed such criminal complaint against the applicants. The situation might have been different, had the respondent responded to the notice issued by this Court and filed counter affidavit. At present, the complaint filed by respondent appears to be an abuse of process of the court, which should be interfered with by this Court in exercise of it’s inherent jurisdiction. 9. It is a well settled law that the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section. In the instant case, it is a fit case where such jurisdiction should be exercised qua applicants. 10. In view of above, application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section. In the instant case, it is a fit case where such jurisdiction should be exercised qua applicants. 10. In view of above, application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is allowed and the summoning order dated 29.01.2010 alongwith the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1066 of 2009 titled as Kishan Maurya vs. Surendra Chaddha & another under Sections 323, 392, 427, 504 & 506 IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed qua applicants.