IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 881/2007 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt …….Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhandl & Another ……Respondents Mr. S.C. Bhatt, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, for the State. None for the private respondent no. 2. 25th November, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, moved under Section 482 CrPC, the prayer has been made to quash the summoning order dated 16.3.2007, passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 430/2007, Smt. Kirti Devi Gupta v. Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt. The prayer has also been made to quash the entire proceedings of the said case. 2. It is pertinent to mention that none has turned up on behalf of the private respondent. So, this Court has given hearing to learned Counsel of the applicant and learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Having gone through the controversy, it appears that Smt. Kirti Devi Gupta along with her husband Om Prakash Gupta took a loan from Gadarpur branch of Nainital Almora Regional Gramin Bank on 20.3.2002 to the tune of rupees one lakh fifty thousand for construction of their house and this loan was insured by the Oriental Insurance Company with a Cover Note No. 391941 dated 25.10.2002 to 24.2.2006. But unfortunately, Om Prakash Gupta died on 3.1.2003. When the bank attempted to recover the amount from Smt. Kirti Devi Gupta, she asked the bank to recover the same from the Oriental Insurance Company. On this, the bank manager 2 replied that the loan was granted to her and not to her deceased husband Om Prakash Gupta. She went to the insurance office where Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt was the Development Officer. It was alleged that on 8.4.2005, at about 11 am, when Kirti Devi Gupta reached to the insurance office, Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt allegedly abused her and threatened to kill her. She moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC whereupon the case was registered under Section 420, 504, 506, 427 IPC bearing Crime No. 1096/2005, but the police after investigation did not find any case to have been made out and submitted Final Report and Expunge Report on 7.6.2005. Smt. Gupta being disgruntled filed a protest petition, which was registered as a complaint case and after recording her statement under Section 200 CrPC and statements of her witnesses Smt. Kalawati and Vinod Kumar under Section 202 CrPC, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt asking him to stand trial for the offences stated above. 4. The impugned summoning order appears to be quite cryptic and shallow giving reflection that the learned Magistrate has not at all applied his mind, and passed the same in a routine and casual manner without appreciation of any statements or the report made out by the Investigation Officer in the matter. Initiation of criminal proceedings against anyone is a significant event, which should be seriously viewed and analyzed by the Magistrate, and the summoning order should have been passed only after due application of mind, appreciation of evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, which certainly has not been done in the instant case 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 16.3.2007 and the entire proceedings of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 430/2007, Smt. Kirti Devi 3 Gupta v. Bhuwan Chandra Bhatt, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed. 6. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 25.11.2011 Prabodh