IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 816 of 2008 Satendra & others ` …….Applicants. Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ……Respondents. Mr. A.V. Pundir, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 2. This Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 6.12.2008 and the proceedings initiated against the applicants by the court below in Criminal Case No. 1903 of 2008 State Vs. Satendra and others pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. Brief facts of the case are that allegations have been made against applicant no. 1, who is a “Gram Pradhan”, that he had taken Rs. 40,000/- from the complainant to “settle” a criminal matter. Consequently, when the matter was not “settled” an F.I.R. was filed against applicant no. 1 and others in which a chargesheet under Section 420 I.P.C. has also been filed. Prima facie, in view of this Court no offence is committed by the applicants under Section 420 I.P.C., on the basis of the allegation made by the complainant. The applicant no. 1 is a “Gram Pradhan”. The allegation against him is that he had taken Rs. 40,000/- for getting the final report filed by the police. Prima facie, the court below was not liable to take cognizance against the accused/applicants on the basis of mere allegation made against the applicants. Moreover, the complainant had, only a few days, prior to lodging the F.I.R. had moved an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, which was rejected. In F.I.R. there is no disclosure of it. 2 The case of the respondent is that there was some “marpeet” between two parties and a criminal case was then registered. The present applicants were given Rs. 40,000/- by the complainant/respondent no. 2 to settle a rather too harsh up this criminal matter. On this bald allegation an F.I.R. has been filed and consequently the Police has filed a chargesheet, inter alia, against the present applicants. The nature of offence, the bald nature of allegation, supported by no evidence, in the backdrop of “parti bandi” in a village, speak loud and clear that the criminal machinery set into motion is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice summoning order dated 6.12.2008 issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar is hereby set aside. With these observations, the present C-482 application is allowed. No order as to costs. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 31.8.2010 Avneet