IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 695 of 2010 1. Smt. Memu Devi W/o Sri Awatar Singh 2. Smt. Bhagdeai W/o Sri Rajendra Singh 3. Smt. Deladeai W/o Sri Dhirgpal Singh 4. Smt. Shovendeai W/o Sri Khajan Singh 5. Smt. Ratandeai W/o Sri Phakeer Singh 6. Smt. Swatranta Devi W/o Sri Gulab Singh All R/o Village Chak Chandali, Patti Kamalserai, P.S. Purola, Tehsil Purola District Uttarkashi. ………………..Applicants Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Home Sectrate Dehradun. 2. Smt. Nardeai W/o Jaiweer Singh Chairperson, Mahadev Swayam Sahayata Samuh, Chak Chandali, Tehsil Purola, District Uttarkashi. ………….........Respondents Shri Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate, present for the petitioners Smt. Mamta Bisht,A.G.A., present for the State. Shri Navnish Negi, Advocate, present for respondent no.2. 2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this petition, moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 202 of 2009, Smt. Nardeai vs. Smt. Memu Devi and others, relating to offences punishable under section 147, 427, 352, 504 and 506 I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3 (1) (X) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Purola, District Uttarkashi. (3) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits. (4) Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners and the respondent no.2 Smt. Nardeai are residents of village Chak Chandali, Tehsil Purola, District Uttarkashi. It appears that a self help group of the women led by respondent no.2 Smt Nardeai, planted some plants in the village. Initially report dated 04.08.2006, was submitted at police station 3 Purola by members of a said group alleging that some persons including Smt. Shovendeai Devi (present petitioner no.4), Smt Deladeai Devi (present petitioner no.3), Smt. Bhagi Devi (petitioner no.2) one Phakeer Singh and Gulab Singh destroyed the plants. There is no allegation of making unlawful assembly, insulting anyone, criminal intimidation or any offence punishable under section 3 (1) (X) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However, thereafter, it appears that respondent no.2 got improved the prosecution story, and filed an application on 22.08.2006, in respect of same incident alleging that offences punishable under section 147, 427, 352, 504 and 506 I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3 (1) (X) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On said application Magistrate appears to have directed the police to register the case, after more than fifteen days of the incident. Needless to say that the application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., (copy of which Annexure -2 to the petition) appears to have been got drafted through some counsel. On the basis of the report of the direction of the Magistrate Crime No. 202 of 2009 was registered against the petitioners in respect 4 of the above mentioned offences punishable under I.P.C., and under the aforesaid Special Act. However, after investigation the Investigating Officer submitted final report (copy of Annexure-6 to the petition) on 19.09.2006, with the findings that no offence is said to have been made out against the petitioners, and report appears to have been got lodged due to enmity. The papers on record further show that the respondent no.2 Smt. Nardeai filed a protest petition, and the same was also rejected vide order dated 06.08.2007, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Purola. Aggrieved by said order respondent no.2 Smt. Nardeai filed Criminal Revision No. 26 of 2007, which was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the trial court. In compliance of said order the Magistrate, himself examined the complainant (present petitioner no.2) under section 200 of Cr.P.C., and one Hansa Devi , Phakiri Devi and Vijmati Devi, under section 202 of Cr.P.C. However, after weighing the evidence Judicial Magistrate Purola found that no offence was made out against the petitioners, and dismissed the criminal complaint vide his order dated 25.04.2009. Again, the respondent no.2 filed a Criminal Revision No. 15 of 2009, before the 5 Sessions Judge, and once again the matter was remanded by the Sessions Judge to the Judicial Magistrate whereafter vide impugned order dated 28.06.2010, the petitioners were summoned in the criminal complaint case in respect of offences punishable under section 147, 427, 352, 504 and 506 I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3 (1) (X) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the petitioners in respect of the offences regarding which there is neither head nor tail. Perusal of Annexure-1 to the petition which is the first version of the prosecution story, submitted by Phakiri Devi at the police station shows that there is no mention of either making unlawful assembly or insulting any one or criminal intimidation. It is also clear that there is no mention that any member of Scheduled Caste was ever insulted. What is mentioned in the complaint (Annexure-1) is that the some plants were destroyed which relates to offence punishable under section 427 of I.P.C. It is clear from the application 6 moved under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C moved on 22.08.2006, by respondent no.2 against the petitioner that improved and exaggerated story was projected to im[plicate the petitioners in respect of serious offences. It is also clear that the total loss alleged was worth ` 500 only. However, on investigation even that was not found true and final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer. It is clear from the record that after considering the protest petition to the respondent no.2 final report was ultimately accepted by the Magistrate vide order dated 06.08.2007. Said order has already attained the finality, and not disturbed by any higher courts. Thereafter, the criminal complaint appears to have been entertained and even after recording statement of 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., earlier the Magistrate found that the evidence adduced by the witnesses was not reliable regarding which noise was heard by the witnesses, and it was simply a quarrel between two groups of women who had gone to cut the grass and that is how the criminal complaint was dismissed on 25.04.2009. On same evidence petitioner appears to have been summoned by the trial court, after the case was remanded by the revisional court. 7 (6) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through all the papers on record, this court finds that the impugned criminal complaint case is nothing but abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant, and hillock the projected from a small mole. (7) Therefore, to secure the ends of justice, and to prevent the abuse of process of court, the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed and proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 202 of 2009, Smt. Nardeai vs. Smt. Memu Devi and others, relating to offences punishable under section 147, 427, 352, 504 and 506 I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3 (1) (X) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Purola, District Uttarkashi, are hereby quashed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.02.08.2011 N.P 8