Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 321 (UTT)

RAJEEV SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-06-24

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate, present for the applicant. 2. Mr. S.S. Adhikari and Ms. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent no. 1. 3. In pursuance of the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal dated 11.03.1999 on an application moved by the applicant under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., an F.I.R. under Case Crime No.33 of 1999 for the offence under Sections 406/420 of I.P.C. at Police Station Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, was lodged by certain officers of U.P. Financial Corporation, inter alia, against the respondent nos.2 to 5, in which the police after investigation ultimately filed final report, which was accepted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal vide order dated 05.07.2000. Thereafter, a Criminal Revision No.19 of 2001, was filed by the U.P. Financial Corporation, which was allowed vide order dated 14.12.2001, and the matter was remanded back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal. Aggrieved, the respondent nos. 2 to 5 filed a Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2002, in which the order dated 14.12.2001, was stayed by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2002, which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 27.08.2007. 4. Thereafter, the applicant filed a protest petition no. 189 of 2008, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2011. Against this order, applicant again filed a Criminal Revision No. 08 of 2012, in which the learned Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal passed an order remanding the matter to the trial court. In compliance of the order dated 26.09.2013, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar heard and dismissed the complaint vide order dated 25.04.2014. Against this order the applicant filed a Criminal Revision No.14 of 2014, this time revision was dismissed vide order dated 13.03.2015. 5. The order of the trial court as well as the revisional court have been perused. 6. The applicant who is Deputy Senior Manager (Law) in the U.P. Financial Corporation states that private respondents had taken loan which they failed to return, therefore, the U.P. Financial Corporation had taken possession of the factory under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, where certain material, including the plant and machinery were discovered missing on 20.01.1998. 6. The applicant who is Deputy Senior Manager (Law) in the U.P. Financial Corporation states that private respondents had taken loan which they failed to return, therefore, the U.P. Financial Corporation had taken possession of the factory under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, where certain material, including the plant and machinery were discovered missing on 20.01.1998. However, the fact of the matter is that the applicant has totally failed to establish before the Court as to what was existing on the bare land prior to 20.01.1998. In short, the applicant has totally failed to establish as to what material was missing from the factory premises. Therefore, no offence is actually made out. Moreover, the Courts below have also held that primarily if a loan has not been paid, it is a matter of civil nature and no criminal offence is made out. In other words, the matter has been heard at different stages by different courts below and all have come to the same conclusion. This Court finds no reasons to differ from these findings. 7. This Court does not find any ground to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed in limine.