IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 405 Of 2005 Om Prakash Bhargava S/o Shri P.D.Bhargava Age 62 years, Authorized Resresentative M/s Eicher Motors Ltd. Though M/s Bhargava Motors, Industrial Estate, Bareilly Road, Haldwani, Nainital ………………..Applicant Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. Firtu Yadav S/o shri Shiv Charan Yadav, r/o E.W.S House no. 586, Holy Chock, Avas Vikas, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar …..…………Respondents Shri D.K.Sharma, Advocate, present for the petitioner Shri B.S.Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State. None present for the complainant even after there being sufficient service on him. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short of Cr.P.C), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1786 of 2003 Firtu 2 Yadav vs. Ashok Kumar Kalra and another, relating to offences punishable under section 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Rudrapur, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. (2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. None present for the respondent no.2 even after there being sufficient service. (3) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Firtu Yadav purchased Eicher Canter (mini truck) on 27.02.2001 in partnership with Ashok Kumar Kalra from M/s Bhargava Motors, Industrial Estate, Bareilly Road, Haldwani, under a hire purchase scheme. Registration number of said vehicle was UA-06- 1761. The complainant's case is that accused Ashok Kumar Kalra does not give account of the earnings, and plies the vehicle as his own. As such the complainant has been deprived of his investment of Rs. 58,000/- in purchasing the 3 vehicle with Ashok Kumar Kalra. On 27.09.2001 a First Information Report was got lodged by the complainant/respondent no.2 Firtu Yadav on which after investigation no offence was said to have been made out against the present petitioner as the present petitioner was simply an authorized dealer on behalf of Eicher Motors. It is pleaded on behalf of petitioner Om Prakash Bhargava that the impugned criminal proceedings initiated against him are liable to be quashed. (4) The facts stated in the petition are not denied by the complainant before this court, nor any counter affidavit is filed. I have gone through the contents of the criminal complaint (copy Annexure -1 to the petition) and impugned order dated 17.09.2003 (copy Annexure-2 to the petition) whereby the petitioner along with Ashok Kumar Kalra is summoned in the criminal case to face the trial, in respect of offences punishable under section 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. I also perused the order dated 04.05.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, 4 in criminal case no. 1786 of 2003. The statement of complainant recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C is annexed as Annexure 4 to the petition. The statement of witness Surendra Kumar Juneja recorded under section 202 of Cr.P.C is also Annexure as part on Annexure 4. (5) Having gone thorough the contents of criminal complaint, statement of witnesses and other papers on record, this court is of the view that the dispute between present petitioner and the complainant is purely of civil nature. The main dispute of the complainant as to accounting of his earning through the vehicle allegedly purchased in partnership, is with the co accused Ashok Kumar Kalra. The petitioner is simply an authorized dealer Eicher Motors through whom the vehicle was said to have been purchased by Ashok Kumar Kalra in partnership, with the complainant. It is not clear from the contents of the criminal complaint that what property was entrusted to the present petitioner by the complainant which can be said to have been misappropriated by him. The vehicle purchased 5 by complainant in partnership was admittedly plied by his alleged partner Ashok Kumar Kalra not by Om Prakash Bhargava (petitioner). As such ingredients of the offence punishable offence 406 I.P.C are not made out against the petitioner. Also, the dispute raised by the complainant relating to accounting and earning through the vehicle, is with the co purchaser Ashok Kumar Kalra. There is no allegation of deception in the criminal complaint against the present petitioner, as such even the ingredients of offence punishable under section 420 are not made out. Also, there are no allegations of offences punishable under section 504 and 506 I.P.C as against the present petitioner. (6) In the above circumstance, and for the reasons as discussed above this court finds that even if the contents of the criminal complaint are taken to be true, no offence is made out as against present petitioner Om Prakash Bhargava. Accordingly, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C is allowed. The criminal proceedings as against the present petitioner Om Prakash 6 Bhargava in criminal complaint case no. 1786 of 2003 Firtu Yadav vs. Ashok Kumar Kalra and another, relating to offences punishable under section 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., police station Rudrapur, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, are hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that the trial court may proceed as against the accused Ashok Kumar Kalra. The interim order dated 08.07.2005 stands vacated. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.19.8.2010 N.P