IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 539 of 2005 Ravi Gupta S/o Sri Kanhya Lal Gupta 18, Nirmal Chavani, P.S. Kotwali District Haridwar. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal. 2. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 3. Prabhakar Gupta S/o Ramesh Chandra Gupta, R/o Shastri Niwas –Nirmal Chhavani, P.S. Kotwali, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A. for respondent No. 1 and 2 / State. None present for respondent No. 3 / complainant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 163 of 2005; Prabhakar Gupta Vs. Ravi Gupta, relating to offences punishable under Section 427, 504, 506 of 2 I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Ravi Gupta is son of the sister of father of the complainant. There is a property dispute between the two since 1993. In the year 2002, the petitioner instituted Suit No. 170 of 2002, in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haridwar, against the complainant Prabhakar Gupta. Mr. Prabhakar Gupta, who is an Advocate, to pressurize the petitioner in said suit, filed allegedly false criminal complaint in question before the Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in which the petitioner was summoned to face trial in respect of offences punishable under Section 427, 504, 506 of I.P.C. Hence, this petition. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to file a false criminal complainant to pressurize the petitioner in the suit instituted by him against the complainant. It is also pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that earlier in the year 2005, he, with similar motive, initiated the proceedings under Section 107 / 116 of Cr.P.C. 5) Notices were issued by this Court to the complainant in the present case, which was sufficiently served on him, but no counter affidavit has been filed since 2005. In the circumstances, this Court has no option but to believe that the criminal complaint in 3 question was filed by the complainant to pressurize the petitioner in the suit instituted by him against the complainant over the property dispute between the parties. That being so, it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the petitioner in the criminal complaint, in question. 6) For the reasons as discussed above, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 163 of 2005; Prabhakar Gupta Vs. Ravi Gupta, relating to offences punishable under Section 427, 504, 506 of I.P.C., pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. April 29, 2010. H. Negi