IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C-482 No. 87 OF 2007 Baljeet Singh ……Applicant. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. …………...Respondents. Present: Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Date of Decision : 18.8.2010 Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Shandilya, Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for respondent no. 3. 2. Applicant by means of present Criminal Misc. Application has challenged the order dated 28.6.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag in Complaint Case No. 312 of 2006 Suresa Singh Vs. Baljeet Singh under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Rudraprayag, District – Rudraprayag, by which he has been summoned under Section 420 I.P.C. 3. The case of the applicant is that respondent no. 3 had filed a complaint against him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate stating that there was an agreement between the complainant and the present applicant, where the complainant had to transport certain goods and material belonging to the applicant, for which certain dues were payable by the applicant to the complainant during the year 1998-2000. Since these dues amounting to Rs. 47,033.13 were not paid by the applicant, respondent no. 3 moved a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed this Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. stating that this process adopted by respondent no. 2 clearly amounts to an abuse of process of law, inasmuch as, the dispute, if at all, is purely of the civil nature and the reasons for delay in filing the complaint has not been explained. Hence, the present 482 petition. 2 5. There is no denial of the fact that the alleged dues of the complainant were pertaining to the year 1998-2000 and the complaint itself was filed in the year 2006. It is true that the bar which is there before the Court under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. is not applicable in the present case as the punishment under Section 420 of the I.P.C. is more than three years, yet there is no denial of the fact that there has been an undue delay in filing the complaint, which has not been explained. Moreover, the dispute, if at all, is purely of civil nature, as such, bringing the criminal machinery into operation at the hands of respondent no. 3 by moving a complaint appears to be purely an abuse of process of the Court and therefore in order to secure the ends of justice, the order dated 28.6.2006 is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. 6. The instant C-482 petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 7. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 18.8.2010 Rathour