IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Appln. (C-482) No. 791 of 2006 Chandra Singh Mehta S/o Hayat Singh Mehta Registrar, H.N.B. Garhwal University, Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand). 3. Narendra Singh Rawat S/o Kedar Singh Rawat R/o Dhar Tondla, District Rudraprayag. ...…………. Respondents Mr. L.P. Naithani, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, A.G.A., present for the State. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Advocate, present for complainant Narendra Singh Rawat. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 2 Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 678 of 2006, State Vs. Chandra Singh Mehta and others, relating to offences punishable under Section 147, 323, 506 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Registrar of H.N.B. Garhwal University, and the dispute relates to exercise of powers by the Chancellor under Section 37 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, regarding affiliation of the private universities with said University. It is pleaded by the petitioner that on 16.12.2005, at about noon, some 100 students led by complainant Narendra Singh Rawat and one Kailash Chandra Pandey entered into the premises of the University and caused damage to the property belonging to University. It appears that the parties filed first information reports giving cross versions of the incident. After investigation, the police submitted final report and found no offence to have been made out against the accused of said case, which included petitioner Chandra Singh Mehta, who was the then Registrar of the University. It appears that when the notices were issued by the Magistrate to the complainant, on his protest petition, the impugned cognizance order was passed by the Magistrate. 3 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the trial court to summon the accused in a case where there was no evidence as against the petitioner Chandra Singh Mehta. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner being Registrar of the University had a duty to protect the property of the University, and the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out as against him (even if the case of the complainant is taken to be true). 5) No counter affidavit has been filed since 2006, on behalf of the respondents. 6) In the above circumstances, this court has no option but to accept what has been accepted in the affidavit filed with the petition. 7) For the reasons as discussed above, this court is of the view that it is a case of abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant against the petitioner Chandra Singh Mehta, the then Registrar of the University, to implicate him in a criminal case. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed. 4 8) Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 678 of 2006, State Vs. Chandra Singh Mehta, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal, relating to offences punishable under Section 147, 323, 506 of I.P.C., are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. December 06, 2010. H. Negi