IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O. No. 181/2009 Date of decision: 6.4. 2010 Yoginder Singh Rana ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the appellant: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General for respondent No. 1 Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 Surinder Singh (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.8.2009 whereby he was summoned as an accused, under Section 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code. Allegations against the petitioner herein are that on 15.11.2007 he visited E.C.H.S. (Ex. Serviceman Contributory Health Scheme) Yole Cantt. for the treatment of his wife where petitioner was posted as Officer-in- Charge. Although at his request, she was referred for 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - further treatment to Delhi, but the respondent was insisting upon for approval of his T.A. as her attendant. He was made to run from one table to another in the said health centre bythe petitioner and Lt. Col. Upender Kumar. It is alleged that when he approached the petitioner and represented that he was also an Ex-serviceman he should cooperate with him, the complainant is alleged to have pushed him out side the room, saying that “Fauji hue to kya hua gya hum tere baap ke naukar nanhin hain”. Significantly, with respect to the same incident, he also issued legal notice to the petitioner and Lt. Colonel Upender Kumar aforesaid, who was Medical Specialist, wherein he specifically alleged that it was Upender Kumar who told him that “App Longon ke naukar nahin hain aap bude jaison ke liye” and pushed the complainant out side. He did not allege anything against the petitioner. There is material variation in the allegations levelled in the notice as well as in the complaint. Even otherwise, the allegations made in the complaint and in the notice, if taken to be true on the face value, do not constitute the office of ‘criminal intimidation’ as defined in Section 503 Indian Penal Code. Further, there is also no evidence with respect to the intentional insult with intent to provoke the breach of peace in terms of Section 504 Indian Penal Code as such order dated 3.8.2009 in case No. 188-II/2009 titled Tulsi Chauhan versus Y.S. Rana and another whereby the petitioner is summoned as an accused for the aforesaid offences is an abuse of process of the court, therefore, it is hereby set - 3 - aside and the said complaint pending in the court of JMIC-1 Dharamshala stands dismissed. March 31, 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)