IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No.399 of 2007 (Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Vinod Prakash & others ………. Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ..…. Respondent Dated: August 25, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Singh Verma, Advocate for the applicants and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1 as well as Sri M.K. Goyal, Advocate for respondent no.2. By way of this criminal revision, it has been prayed to set aside the summoning order dated 17.4.2001 along with the entire proceedings of criminal case no.439 of 2001, pending for the offence of Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in the court of II A.C.J.M., Haridwar. Having heard the pros and cons of the case, it transpires that a society with the title “Ganga Jamuna Khadi Gramodhyog Vikas Sansthan” was founded under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Sri Surendra Kumar (applicant no.2) was the President, Smt. Sarojbala (applicant no.3) was the Secretary and Sri Vinod Prakash (applicant no.1) was the husband of Smt. Sarojbala. Private opposite party no.2-Smt. Pravesh was allegedly a Vice President of the said Society while Sri Rakesh and Smt. Mithlesh were the members of that society. It is pertinent to mention that Smt. Pravesh is represented by her counsel Sri M.K. Goyal, Advocate while Sri Rakesh has been sufficiently served but has not put his appearance whereas Smt. Mithlesh has refused to accept the notices sent by this Court. 2 After founding of this Society, having the object of launch a stone crusher, a total sum of Rs.9.30 lacs was taken as loan by the said Society from Khadi Gramodhyog Board having its regional office at Dehradun. This loan was sanctioned and disbursed to the society in two installments; the first installment of Rs.1.50 lacs was given on 31.3.1993 while the second installment of Rs.7.80 lacs was given to the Society on 25.3.1996. This way, a total loan amounting to Rs.9.30 lacs was disbursed for establishing a stone crusher by the Society. It appears that when this loan, for some reason or the other, was not paid back, then notices for the recovery for the same were sent to the Society through its President, Secretary and other members. One of the notices dated 11.1.1999 sent to Smt. Pravesh is on the record, which is annexure CA4 to the counter affidavit filed by her. Respondent no.2 moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on dated 26.5.2000, i.e. almost after 4½ months of the receipt of that notice, for lodging an FIR that her name has been falsely implicated as a Vice President to the Society by all other Members, President and Secretary. The FIR could be lodged by the intervention of the court on dated 1.6.2000 at P.S. Jwalapur. After the investigation, the police did not find any case to have been made out against the applicants Vinod Prakash, Surendra Kumar and Smt. Sarojbala. The Investigating Officer, on the basis of evidence collected by him, has opined that the case has been falsely got registered by Smt. Pravesh in order to save herself from incurring any liability to pay the loan and in this regard, a civil suit is also pending in the court of competent jurisdiction. After submission of this final report, the Magistrate has taken cognizance in the matter and passed the impugned 3 order dated 17.4.2001 on the protest petition filed by Smt. Pravesh. It has been argued on behalf of respondent no.2 that before sanctioning the loan by the Board, the letters were written by her on dated 24.11.1995 and 10.1.1996, reiterating that she is not the vice president nor member nor any office bearer of that society, but even then, the loan was sanctioned by the Khadi Gramodhyog Board to the Society founded by the applicants and others. In this regard, this Court is of the opinion that if the Society is sending the recovery notice to Smt. Pravesh, then she can raise her objections at the appropriate forum; may it be in front of the Board itself or in the civil court, but she cannot have any propriety to lodge the FIR against the applicants. Besides, when the letters were sent by respondent no.2 on 24.11.1995 and 10.1.1996 respectively that her name has been falsely shown as the vice president or member or any office bearer of the society by the applicants, then she was at liberty to initiate any action against them at the relevant point of time, but she has not done so. In these circumstances, the finding of the Investigating Officer that this FIR was lodged just to escape from the liability of incurring the payment of recovery sent by the Board, has got substance. This way, the order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate is without any substance, which is liable to be quashed. For the reasons as aforesaid, the C482 petition is allowed. Order of cognizance dated 17.4.2001 as well as the proceedings of criminal case no.439 of 2001, pending before the II ACJM, Haridwar, are hereby quashed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 25.08.2011 Rajeev Dang