IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appln No. 662 of 2005 1. Kale Khan S/O Shri Sher Khan 2. Rijwan S/O Shri Kale Ram 3. Furkan S/O Shri Kale Ram All R/O, Fatehullaganj, Thakurdwara, P.S, Thakurdwara District Muradabad, U.P 4. Nabab Jan Khan S/O Shri Rahees Jain R/O Moh, Jamnawala, Thakurdwara, P.S Thakurdwara District Muradabad, U.P ………. Applicants Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand 2. Sadik S/O Shri Kaluva, R/O Village Teerathpur, P.S Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar …………..Opposite parties Shri Mohd Azim, Advocate present for the petitioners Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A with Shri M.A.Khan Brief Holder present for the State/respondent no.1 None present for the respondent no.2/ complainant even after being served personally with the notices. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure1973, the petitioners have sought 2 quashing of the proceedings of criminal complaint case no 169 of 2001, Sadik vs. Kale khan and others, relating to offence punishable under section 500 I.P.C, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. (3) Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, which was registered as criminal case 793 of 1999, in which it is pleaded by the complainant that the complainant Sadik is a respected person. It is alleged in the criminal complaint that the accused (present petitioners) got lodged a false report at Police Station, Thakurdwara (District Muradabad U.P), in respect of offence punishable under section 406 I.P.C which was registered as crime no. 371 of 1998. In that case the complainant has to remain in Jail for sometime. It is pleaded by the complainant that due to said false case the complainant reputation in the public eye got lowered down. Hence the complainant filed complaint before the Magistrate praying that the accused be summoned to face trial in respect of offence punishable under section 500I.P.C. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, appears to have recorded the statement of the complainant under section 200 of Cr.P.C on 23.01.1999. Thereafter on 02.02.1999 statement of Zahid and Bholu were recorded under section 202 of Cr.P.C. Magistrate summoned the accused (present petitioners) Kale Khan, Rijwan, Furkan 3 and Nabab vide his order-dated 10.02.1999, to face trial, in respect of offence punishable under section 500 I.P.C. Thereafter, said case was transferred to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kashipur. When the accused moved an application for recalling the order summoning them, the same was allowed, against which the complainant filed criminal revision no nil of 2005, which was summarily disposed of vide order dated 30th of March 2005, by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the revision was allowed on the ground that the Magistrate has no power to recall his own order. Hence this petition. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the contents of the criminal complaint filed before the trial court, it is evident that the tractor of the Kale Khan (petitioner no.1) was stolen and a first information report was lodged, (copy of the first information report is annexed as Annexure – 6 to the petition). In said petition among the accused name of Sadik is also mentioned. It is contended that said report was lodged in Thakurdwara (District Muradabad U.P) and not within the territorial limits of State of Uttarakhand. As such the Judicial Magistrate or the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Uttarakhand had no jurisdiction to summon the accused under section 500 I.P.C. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2, before this court contradicting the fact that the criminal case was registered in State of U.P within the territorial limits of State of U.P. That being so this court agrees with the contention of learned counsel with the petitioners that since the offence was not 4 committed within the territorial limit of Judicial Magistrate Kashipur, the criminal complaint should not been entertained by said Magistrate. (5) It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that assuming for a moment that Judicial Magistrate/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had the jurisdiction at Kashipur, even then the offence of defamation is not made out from the criminal complainant as against the petitioners. In this connection attention of this court is drawn to para-5 of the criminal complaint (copy Annexure –1 to the petition) in which, it is alleged that in the newspaper Dainik Jagran dated 05.01.1999, it was reported that the stolen tractor was found in possession of some other thieves. That being so it can be said that the tractor of the petitioner no.1 Kale Khan was got stolen merely for the reason that he named the respondent no.2, on suspicion it can not be said that the petitioner no.1 had intention to defame the respondent no.2 Sadik. (6) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the papers on record, for the reasons as discussed above this court is of the view that this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C deserves to be allowed. (7) The petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C is allowed. The proceedings of criminal complaint case no 169 of 2001, Sadik vs. Kale Khan and others, relating to offence punishable under 5 section 500 I.P.C, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, are hereby quashed. Dt.21.4.2010 N.P (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)