IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 786 of 2008 1. Khyali Ram Joshi S/o Sri Pandev Joshi 2. Girish Chandra Joshi S/o Sri Khyali Ram Joshi Both R/o Sameer Bihar, Phase-I, Gas Godam Road, Kusumkhera, Haldwani, District Nainital. ………..….. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal. through S.S.P. Nainital. 2. Hem Pandey S/o Sri Goverdhan Pandey R/o Chhoti Mukhani, Haldwani, District Nainital. ………… Respondents Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A. for respondent No. 1 / State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 356 of 2007, State Vs. Khyali Ram and another, relating to offences punishable under Section 420 and 406 of I.P.C., police station Haldwani, District Nainital, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 Hem Pandey, complainant, lodged a first information report on 03.05.2004, with police station Haldwani, alleging that the petitioners have cheated the complainant and others by promising them job after collecting money from them. It is alleged that the complainant promised that he will get selected the complainant and other candidates for getting them trained for the service in the Merchant Navy. After investigation, the police did not find any substance in the complaint / first information report, and submitted final report. It is observed by the Investigating Officer that there is no evidence of cheating or misappropriation of the amount collected. When the final report was submitted in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, the same was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 178 of 2005, and notices were issued to the complainant. The complainant did not turn up, nor filed any protest petition. However, the Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants against the accused / present petitioners. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the witnesses have neither supported the allegation made in the complaint before the Investigating Officer, nor complainant responded to the notices issued by the Magistrate on the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer, nor has he turned up in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that in all 35 candidates were selected for training before entering in service with the Merchant Navy. Out of which 31 were provided job immediately after completion of the training. Remaining four candidates, which included the complainant Hem Pandey, also got job later on. However, meanwhile, the complainant Hem Pandey had lodged the first information report in question. In the circumstances, it is argued that the learned trial court has committed grave error of law in registering the criminal case on the final report. 5) Having gone through the papers on record, and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that when there was no evidence on record, the Magistrate had no power to register the criminal case on final report. It is not necessary for the Magistrate to accept the final report in every case and he could have registered the criminal case on such report provided there was sufficient evidence on record to summon the accused, collected by the Investigating Officer. But, in the present case, neither the witnesses have supported the prosecution story before the Investigating Officer, nor the complainant has turned up before the Magistrate after notices were issued to him on the final report, as such, when there was no evidence on record to summon the accused, this Court has no hesitation in accepting the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the trial court has committed grave error of law in registering the criminal case against the petitioners, and in issuing the non-bailable warrants against them. 6) For the reasons as discussed above, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 356 of 2007, State Vs. Khyali Ram and another, relating to offences punishable under Section 420 and 406 of I.P.C., police station Haldwani, District Nainital, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt: May 11, 2010. H.Negi