IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 796 of 2011 Sultan Singh S/o Shri Tula Ram, R/o Village Khandi Chama, Tehsil and Police Station Chakrata, District Dehradun. .…..Petitioner Versus 1- State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Dehradun. 2- Munna, S/o Shri Bholu, R/o Village Mauti Khat Bonder, Tehsil and Police Station Chakrata, District-Dehradun. ……Respondents Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mrs., Mamta Bisht, A.G.A., present for the State. Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate, present for the respondent No.2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing proceedings of Criminal Case No. 123 of 2007 (new No. 175 of 2009) State Vs.Matwar Singh and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 107, 376 I.P.C. pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun. 2 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner Sultan Singh is not named in the First Information Report. After investigation, the Police submitted final report, as no offence is said to have been found committed either by the petitioner Sultan Singh, or by co-accused Matwar Singh. However, the Magistrate, in his wisdom took cognizance, and summoned the petitioner Sultan Singh and co-accused Matwar Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no role has been assigned to the petitioner even in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., by the complainant. 4) In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that Mebki Devi, (alleged victim) did not allow the medical examination, as such, there is no medical evidence on record, in support of the allegations made in the First Information Report. In Para No. 18 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that complainant Munna and accused Matwar Singh had differences between them relating to some payment of money and due to that reason, it was found that the report was lodged. In Para No. 13 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that no evidence was found to file the charge sheet against the accused during investigation. 5) In the above circumstances, it appears that there is no iota of evidence on record, to summon the accused in the case, as there is neither statement of the girl supporting the allegations in the First Information Report, nor there is 3 any medical report on record to corroborate the same, rather, it was found that due to some rivalry, the impugned First Information Report was lodged. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the summoning order passed by the Magistrate is not based on the evidence on record, and without their being any evidence, the accused have been summoned on the final report, submitted by the Investigating Officer. 6) Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 123 of 2007 (new No. 175 of 2009) State Vs. Matwar Singh and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 107, 376 I.P.C. pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun, are hereby quashed. (Compounding Application No. 1030 of 2011, stands disposed of ). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 17.11.2011 JM