IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 438 of 2004 1. Sanjay Shukla S/o Shri R.R. Shukla Manager, Dainik Jagran Industrial Area, Patel Nagar Dehradun. 2. Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Raghuraj Singh R/o 1160, Vyomprastha, G.M.S. Road Dehradun. …Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal. 2. Manoj Sharma S/o Shri R.N. Sharma R/o C/o Sardar Darmeet Singh 43, Park Road, Dehradun. ……….Respondents. Shri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for State (respondent No. 1). None for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 1177 of 2004, Manoj Sharma Vs. Sanjay Shukla and another, relating to offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C., pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No. 1. None present for respondent No. 2 even after being 2 served personally with the notices, issued by this Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2-Manoj Sharma, filed a criminal complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun with the allegations that complainant (respondent No. 2) was Bureau incharge of daily newspaper- Dainik Jagran, in the year 1999, at Rishikesh. Petitioner No. 1-Sanjay Shukla, who was Manager of daily newspaper- Dainik Jagran, issued an order, transferring complainant/respondent No. 2 to Uttarkashi. It is pleaded in the complaint that it was done so with ill-will on the part of the petitioner No. 1. It is further stated in the criminal complaint that complainant/respondent No. 2 was mentally tortured and he was again transferred to Dehradun. Due to some dispute relating to payment of money, a First Information Report was lodged in the year 2000, by the petitioner No. 1- Sanjay Shukla, who was Manager of Dainik Jagran against the complainant, who was working with the Advertising branch of said paper. It is alleged by the complainant that in the year 2002, complainant was called by the petitioner No. 1 and he was scolded by him and again complainant was transferred to Haridwar. Thereafter, since 2002, a deduction of Rs. 2,000/- per month was made from the salary of the complainant, and ultimately, complainant had to leave the job in the year 2003. It is alleged in the criminal complaint that complainant was not paid any sum due on account 3 of Bonus, Gratuity, Provident Fund etc. by saying that certain dues were already recoverable from the complainant, as such, post retiral dues stood adjusted. Lastly, it is pleaded that on phone the complainant was insulted and a threat was given to him on 15.08.2003, by petitioner No. 2- Pushpendra Singh that the complainant will have to face dire consequences. 4. Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun, to whom the criminal complaint appears to have been transferred, after perusal of the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and one under Section 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the petitioners- Sanjay Shukla and Pushpendra Singh to face the trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the entire complaint from para-1 to para- 13, it is apparent that this complaint is a motivated one. I have gone through the paragraphs, referred by learned counsel for the petitioners and found that these paragraphs in criminal complaint itself indicate that after getting dissatisfied with his employer, the complainant has filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners (who are officers in the establishment where the complainant used to work). It is not clear either from the criminal complaint or from the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. in what manner the complainant was insulted and what were the words 4 uttered to him on phone. It is also not clear that how the intimidation was caused to the complainant by the petitioners. Complainant (respondent No. 2) has not dared to controvert the averments made in the affidavit, filed with the petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and no counter affidavit has been filed even after notices were served on him. This Court, agrees with learned counsel for the petitioners that the present criminal complaint in question is nothing but an attempt to teach lesson to the Management of the daily newspaper by an employee, who has admittedly left the job. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to initiate criminal proceedings against the Management to level the score after he is ousted from the job. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 1177 of 2004, Manoj Sharma Vs. Sanjay Shukla and another, relating to offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist, Dehradun, are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:09.03.2010 Sweta 5