IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Restoration/Recall App. No. 1234 of 2007 IN Criminal Misc. App. No. 436 of 2001 (Old No. 3488/2000) 1. A.K. Pathak S/o Late Shri H.C. Pathak T.IV/20, Government Officers Colony Rawatpur, Kanpur. 2. Sidheshwar Prasad S/o Shri Chandra dev Singh P-Block, Purani Basti Kakadeo, Kanpur. ……….Petitioners. Versus 1. State of U.P. 2. A.C.J.M. IIIrd, Dehradun. 3. Vigyan Chemicals Industries through its Power of Attorney Shri Sunil Kumar S/o Sri Vigyan Prakash 90, Raja Road, Dehradun. ………….Respondents. Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. Hon’ble Prafulla, C.Pant, J. This is restoration application No. 1234 of 2007, in which it is prayed by respondent No. 3 to recall and set aside the order dated 12.06.2007, passed by this Court in criminal misc. application No. 436 of 2001, whereby the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 585 of 1996, Vigyan Chemicals Vs. Sidheshwar Prasad Singh and another, pending in the court of IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, were quashed. 2. The delay in filing the above recall/restoration application is condoned. 3. Also, heard on recall/restoration application and perused the affidavit accompanied therewith. 4. The order dated 12.06.2007, is passed after hearing the Additional Government Advocate, as none of the other parties were present. Perusal of the record was made and it was found that the dispute in respect of which the criminal complaint was lodged by respondent No.3, attracted only civil liability. 5. The ground for absence is sufficient. Restoration application is allowed on the condition that the respondent/applicant shall be heard today on merits. 6. Heard on merits of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. I have again gone through the record and found that the order passed on 12.06.2007, does not suffer from any illegality, which requires recall of said order. Even after considering the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No. 3, who was heard today as to the maintainability of the criminal complaint, filed by him before the Magistrate, this Court is not satisfied that the offences for which the petitioner were summoned, were made out. Original Suit No. 352 of 1997, is already filed by complainant/respondent No. 3 for recovery of Rs. 91,715/-. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed with the direction that proceedings in criminal complaint case No. 585 of 1996, Vigyan Chemicals Vs. Sidheshwar Prasad Singh and another, pending in the court of IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, are quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 14.03.2008 Sweta