Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 545 (UTT)

Jayant Kumar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-10-11

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to set aside charge sheet dated 05.05.20017 and the impugned order dated 14.12.2007, passed by learned I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in criminal case no. 2349 of 2007, State vs Jayant Kumar, under Sections 420, 120B IPC, as also the entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case number. 2. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., being no. 807 of 2014, filed by co-accused Ravi Prakash Agarwal was allowed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 22.11.2011. The impugned charge sheet and the order of cognizance dated 30.07.2007, in criminal case no. 701 of 2007, pending before I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar were quashed vide order dated 22.11.2011. 3. None has appeared for the private respondent, despite service of notice upon said respondent. It appears that he is not interested in prosecuting the present applicant. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that whereas co-accused Ravi Prakash Agarwal was proprietor of M/s Multi Max Engineering Works and private respondent (respondent no. 2 herein) was the partner of M/s Eastern Health Care based at SIDCUL, present applicant is Assistant General Manager of M/s Multi Max Engineering Works. In other words, whereas co-accused against whom the charge sheet has been quashed was the proprietor of M/s Multi Max Engineering Works, present applicant is the Assistant General Manager of the selfsame company. There is a dispute between the parties in course of some business transaction. 5. Learned co-ordinate bench of this Court has ruled that it was purely a business transaction and if there was any dispute regarding the said transaction, the grievance could have been raised at an appropriate forum like Consumer Court etc. As per learned co-ordinate bench, lodging of an FIR is nothing but totally an abuse of process of the court and, hence, the co-accused Ravi Prakash Agarwal should not be subjected to undergo criminal trial. When Ravi Prakash Agarwal’s petition was decided by learned co-ordinate bench, the private respondent was represented by a learned counsel. In present C-482 petition, none is representing the private respondent. It may be noted here that after the charge sheet was filed against the main accused Ravi Prakash Agarwal, a supplementary charge sheet was filed against the present applicant. 6. When Ravi Prakash Agarwal’s petition was decided by learned co-ordinate bench, the private respondent was represented by a learned counsel. In present C-482 petition, none is representing the private respondent. It may be noted here that after the charge sheet was filed against the main accused Ravi Prakash Agarwal, a supplementary charge sheet was filed against the present applicant. 6. For the reasons indicated by learned co-ordinate bench in C-482 petition of Ravi Prakash Agarwal, being Criminal Misc. Application no. 807 of 2014, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. also be allowed, especially when private respondent is not contesting the same. 7. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., therefore, meets the same fate as was met by Ravi Prakash Agarwal, applicant of C-482 petition no. 807 of 2007. 8. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. As a consequence thereof, charge sheet dated 05.05.20017 and the impugned order dated 14.12.2007, passed by learned I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in criminal case no. 2349 of 2007, State vs Jayant Kumar, under Sections 420, 120B IPC, as also the entire proceedings of aforesaid criminal case number are hereby set aside. 9. Since present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being decided in the absence of private respondent, therefore, opportunity of hearing should be afforded to him if he approaches the Court on his own, either in person or through counsel, and if he feels aggrieved with this order, which is purely based upon statutory foundation. [Vishnu Agarwal vs State of U.P. and another, (2011) 14 SCC 813 ; Asit Kumar Kar vs State of West Bengal, (2009) 2 SCC 703 .]