IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Recall / Restoration Application No. 77 / 2011 In Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 957 of 2005 Naresh Kumar Jindal S/o late Sri Rajkishan Das R/o 12-A, Green Park, B allupur Chowk, Dehradun. ...…………. Petitioner / applicant Versus 1. Sri Pawan Kumar Poddar S/o late Sri Mahavir Prasad Poddar 1/3, Tilak Road, Dehradun. 2. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand) ...…………. Respondents Mr. Pradeep Lohani, Advocate, present for the petitioner / applicant. Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate, present for respondent No. 1. Mr. T.C. Aggarwal, Addl. Govt. Advocate, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is Recall / Restoration Application MCRC No. 77 of 2011, for restoration of Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 957 of 2005, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by this court, on 03.09.2010. 2) Delay in filing the application is condoned. 3) Heard on restoration application and perused the affidavit filed with the application, in which absence on 2 03.09.2010, is sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed by Naresh Kumar Jindal. 4) In view of the principle of law laid down in Madhumilan Syntex Limited and others Vs. Union of India and another, 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 1971, the restoration application is allowed, on the condition that the petitioner shall argue today on the merits of the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5) The Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 957 of 2005 is restored to its original number. 6) Also, heard on the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., on merits 7) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 Pawan Kumar Poddar filed a criminal complaint No. 577 of 2004 before the Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Dehradun, alleging that the petitioner and his other family members got medical treatment from his father late Sri Mahavir Prasad Poddar. It is further alleged in the criminal complaint that the outstanding bills of his father were not paid by the accused (petitioner). 8) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the contents of the criminal complaint are taken to be true, it is nothing but a case of pure civil liability, and there is no element of dishonesty which is a necessary ingredient for the purposes of cheating. It is further 3 contended that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the petitioner in criminal case. 9) Perusal of the copy of the criminal complaint shows that complainant’s father was an Ayurvedic Naturopath. It is alleged that he (complainant’s father) medically treated the accused, including the present petitioner. It is further alleged in the criminal complaint that outstanding dues with medical bills were not cleared. Having gone through the contents of the criminal complaint, this court finds that it is a case purely of civil nature, even if the prosecution case is taken to be true, the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 420, 504, 506 of I.P.C. are not made out. In these circumstances, this court is of the view that it is abuse of process of law to implicate the accused, including the petitioner, in a criminal case. 10) For the reasons as discussed above, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The proceedings of the criminal complaint case No. 557 of 2004, Pawan Kumar Poddar Vs. Naresh Kumar Jindal and others, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Dehradun, are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. February 25, 2011. H. Negi 4