IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.660 of 2007 (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) 1. Bhim Brat Singh 2. Vijendra Singh ………. Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ..…. Respondents Dated: November 17, 2011 Sri S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioners Sri Nandan Arya, AGA for the State/respondent no.1 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta , J. By way of this petition, moved u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been made to quash the order of cognizance dated 17.7.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur in criminal case no.93/2007, titled as A.K. Hanspal Vs. Vijendra Singh and others. The prayer has also been made to quash the entire proceedings of the said case, wherein the petitioners were directed to stand trial for the offence of Sections 409 and 420 IPC, along with third accused Surendra Kumar Saxena. It is pertinent to note that Sri Saxena has not filed any petition and this petition has been filed only on behalf of Bhim Brat Singh and Vijendra Singh. It is again pertinent to mention that none has turned up on behalf of private respondent A.K. Hanspal, despite the name of his chosen counsel appears at Serial No.5 of the weekly cause list of the day. So, this Court has given hearing to learned counsel for the petitioners as well as to learned AGA on behalf of the State. It is significant to mention that there is a ‘Kisan Sahkari Sugar Mill’, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein Vijendra Singh was the Deputy Chief Chemist cum Go-down 2 Incharge and Bhim Brat Singh was the Go-down Keeper while A.K. Hanspal was the In-charge Chief Chemist cum officiating Go-down In-charge. The FIR was lodged by Sri A.K. Hanspal on 9.8.2004 bearing crime no.500/2004 against the petitioners as well as Surendra Kumar Saxena (Sheera Clerk), wherein it was stated that on 8.8.2004, 690 bags, filled with sugar, were found in the go-down which had the capacity to store 40,000 bags and the number of these bags though were found to be correct as per the record, but the shortcoming, which was noticed by Sri Hanspal, was that 12 bags, out of those 690 bags, were not found to be filled with the fresh sugar, but with the sweepage sugar, and the bags were manually stitched, instead of having the machine stitching. It would be relevant to mention that sweepage sugar is that one which is collected from the floor of the go-down, having been scattered from the bags, filled with fresh sugar. The investigation was made, resulting into the submission of the final report on 7.10.2004, with a note of taking action against the complainant u/s 182 I.P.C., on the basis of which, the learned Magistrate initiated the action against Sri Hanspal u/s 182 I.P.C., registering a criminal case no.674/2007 against him. When Sri Hanspal came to know about the initiation of proceedings u/s 182 IPC against him, he filed a protest petition on 6.6.2005, which was registered as a complaint. The learned Magistrate after recording the statements of the complainant and that of witnesses, namely, Swatantra Pal Singh Sirohi, G.C. Gahtoli and Devendra Chandra Bhatt u/s 202 Cr.P.C., took cognizance of the matter and asked Vijendra Singh, Bhim Brat Singh and Surendra Kumar Saxena to stand for trial for the offence of Sections 409/420 IPC, which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3 It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the collection of the sweepage sugar is a normal feature in such a big go-down, for which a special agreement is always executed, and one of such agreements was executed on 1.1.2004 by the General Manager of the Sugar Mill (Annexure 8 to the petition), a perusal whereof shows that the sweepage sugar, collected and filled in the bags, is always manually stitched for the reason that such bags always have the wear and tear from different places, and to stitch them by machine, is not always feasible. Besides, the rates of payment for such stitching and collection of the sweepage sugar bags are also settled in the agreement. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that the reporter Sri Hanspal was envious with Vijendra Singh and had nurtured the intention, not to permit him to secure the promotion on the post of Chief Chemist, and this was meant to maintain his position as the In-charge Chief Chemist for all the times to come, notwithstanding the fact that he was junior to Mr. Vijendra Singh in service. It has further been argued that Sri Hanspal also reported the matter to the higher authorities, whereupon an enquiry was conducted by the Executive Director, who submitted his report to the Cane Secretary of the Government of Uttarakhand on 23.9.2005 (Annexure 9 to the petition), in which all the petitioners were exonerated from the charges levelled against them in the FIR and the Executive Director also ratified that no irregularity was found in the physical verification of the sugar bags, and that Sri Hanspal enviously wanted to implicate Sri Vijendra Singh in order to defame him, so that his supersession in service seniority could be ensured for all the times to come. Having received the report of the Executive Director, the petitioners, along with Surendra Kumar Saxena, were reinstated in the service with all previous wages on dated 4 14.10.2005. It is also significantly notable that Go-down Keeper submitted his report to the In-charge Godown/In- charge Chief Chemist, who was none other than Sri Hanspal on 31.7.2004 (Annexure 11 to the petition) ratifying that the sugar collected and filled up in 12 bags, was sweepage one. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the order of cognizance passed by learned Magistrate is without any substance and liable to be quashed. The petition deserves to be allowed. It is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned order of cognizance dated 17.7.2007 as well as the proceedings of criminal case no.93 of 2007, A.K. Hanspal Vs. Vijendra Singh & others, are hereby quashed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) November 17, 2011 Rajeev Dang