IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 452/2006 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Shiv Kumar Garg …….Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal & Another ……Respondents Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA, for the State. Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent no. 2. 15th December, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By means of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, moved under Section 482 CrPC, the prayer has been made to quash the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 356/2003, Tej Ram Singh v. Shiv Kumar Garg, as well as the order of cognizance dated 23.10.2003, passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate II, Haridwar, whereby the applicant has been summoned to stand trial for the offences punishable under Section 409, 420 IPC. The applicant has also prayed to quash the order dated 22.4.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 140/2004. 2. The background facts qua controversy are that Tej Ram Singh retired on 30.11.1998 from the post of Senior Assistant, Irrigation/Canal Department, Haridwar. At the time of his superannuation, accused applicant was the Executive Engineer and being so, he was also the Drawing and Disbursing Officer for all the employees subordinate to him including the complainant Tej Ram Singh. The grievance of the complainant was that ` 1,56,900/- had to be paid to him as his retiral dues after assessment of the pension, but Mr. Shiv Kumar Garg (applicant) paid him only ` 1,23,424/- and 2 deducted the remaining amount of ` 33,476/-. Tej Ram Singh issued a notice to the Executive Engineer Mr. Garg on 11.11.2002 asking him to make the full payment, but he was not paid the remaining amount. So, he filed a complaint on 7.1.2003 before the Magistrate making allegations of Section 409, 419, 420 IPC against Mr. Garg. 3. The complainant Tej Ram Singh examined himself on 18.8.2003 under Section 200 CrPC and his witnesses Dinesh Kumar and Deepak Kumar (son of the complainant) were examined on 16.10.2003 under Section 202 CrPC. 4. The learned Magistrate, after going through the statements made under Section 200 and 202 CrPC, as stated above, passed the order of cognizance dated 23.10.2003 asking the accused applicant to stand trial for the offences punishable under Section 409, 420 IPC. Mr. Garg appeared before the Magistrate and filed objections on the strength of absence of requisite permission under Section 197 CrPC before launching prosecution against him because the alleged deed, as complained of, was committed during discharge of his official duties. The learned Magistrate allowed the objections of the applicant vide his order dated 23.3.2004 and set aside the order of cognizance dated 23.10.2003, where against complainant preferred a revision, which was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar vide his judgment and order dated 22.4.2006, with the result that the order of cognizance dated 23.10.2003, passed by the Magistrate, was sustained. Hence, this petition. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, it is clear that Tej Ram Singh retired on 30.11.1998. As regards the payment of his retiral dues, a letter dated 18.1.1999 was issued from the 3 office of Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, and the same was received in the last week of January, 1999 in the office of Executive Engineer Mr. Garg. On the basis of that letter, the Accountant of the office of Executive Engineer prepared his own report dated 6.2.1999 recommending the deduction of ` 33,476/- from the retiral dues of Tej Ram Singh, and this recommendation of the Accountant was based upon the calculation which was done by the office of Chief Engineer, Uttar Pradesh, and the Drawing & Disbursing Officer was also directed to adjust the amount at his own level, which was recoverable from Tej Ram Singh. The same was done by Mr. Garg at the recommendation of his Accountant. 6. In the above narrated facts and circumstances of the case, Mr. Garg was absolutely right in deducting the said amount, and filing such a frivolous complaint against the Drawing & Disbursing Officer is nothing but sheer abuse of the process of court, and it cannot be allowed to be continued. Hence, the order of cognizance dated 23.10.2003, passed by the learned Magistrate, and the order dated 22.4.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar setting aside the order dated 23.3.2004 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, are liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. Order of cognizance dated 23.10.2003, passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate II, Haridwar as well as the entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 356/2003, Tej Ram Singh v. Shiv Kumar Garg and the judgment & order dated 22.4.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 140/2004, all are hereby quashed. 8. However, since it has been held that the complainant has abused the process of the court and 4 unnecessarily dragged the applicant Mr. Garg into litigation, who suffered the mental agony of facing a criminal trial, therefore, before parting with this case, a special cost of rupees five thousand is imposed on the complainant Tej Ram Singh, which shall be recovered from his pension. The cost shall be deposited in the Government account. 9. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the Senior Treasury Officer concerned through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar for recovery of the cost from the complainant. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 15.12.2011 Prabodh