IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 612 of 2007 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Sudesh Kumar Bahari. ……….Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ....…. Respondents. Present : Sri Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the applicant. Sri G.S. Sandhu, Government Advocate for the State. None for the respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. By way of this petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been advanced to quash the proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 34 of 2007 (new number) [627 of 2006 (old number)] and order of cognizance dated 16.01.2007 passed therein by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, asking the applicant to stand trial for the offence under Section 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC. It is pertinent to mention that none has turned up, on behalf of the respondent no. 2 Mahesh, today and on previous date too, he was not represented by anyone, so this Court has given hearing to learned counsel for the applicant and learned Government Advocate for the State. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that said complaint was filed by respondent no. 2 Mahesh against two accused persons namely Gyan Sareen, who is neighbour of Mahesh and resident of village Bhogpur, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar and Sudesh Kumar Bahari (present applicant), who is resident of Jalandhar, Punjab, as has been stated in paragraph 12 of the complaint itself. It has 2 been highlighted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is virtually, in distant relation with Gyan Sareen. 3. Three acres of land was allotted to the complainant by the Government, on lease and this land was adjacent to the agricultural land of Sushil Kumar, in-laws of Gyan Sareen, who resided in his in-laws’ house. It was alleged that accused Gyan Sareen, in order to grab the land of complainant, so allotted to him by the Government, commenced to onslaught him in sundry manner, which annoyed the complainant and he instituted the instant complaint. He himself was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witnesses Bhagwati Devi, his mother and Hukum Chand, both residents of same village, were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate, having gone through the statements of complainant and his witnesses, passed the impugned order of cognizance on 16.01.2007. 4. This order of cognizance was challenged only by Sudesh Kumar Bahari, so this Court stayed the trial only against him on dated 04.09.2007 while proceedings were left to be continued against another accused Gyan Sareen and now, this Court is not aware about the status of the trial against Gyan Sareen. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has read the contents of the complaint and statements of complainant and his witnesses and pointed out that no specific allegation has been made against the applicant and there is only simple averment in the complaint that the applicant was in collusion with another accused. 6. All the allegations have been made only against accused Gyan Sareen, so permitting applicant Sudesh Kumar 3 Bahari to face rigmarole trial will be a gross abuse of process of law. Having a look upon the contents of the complaint as well as statements deposed by complainant and his witnesses, this Court does agree with the submission put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant and finds that petition deserves to be allowed. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned order of cognizance dated 16.01.2007 and proceedings, in question, only against present applicant Sudesh Kumar Bahari are hereby quashed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 13.12.2011 SKS