Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Uttarakhand High Court

Saidab And Others vs Shamim Alias Kallu on 6 June, 2017

Author: U.C. Dhyani

Bench: U.C. Dhyani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


       Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 591 of 2011



Saidab & others                              .......    Applicants

                                    versus
Shamim @ Kallu                               .......   Respondent

Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the applicants.
None present for the respondent.

U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)

By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash / set aside the impugned summoning order dated 30.10.2010, as also the entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 1804 / 2010, Shamim vs Saidab & others, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

2) Notice was issued to the respondent. None has turned up on his behalf.

3) It appears that the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the accused applicant.

4) Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the impugned criminal complaint is nothing but counter blast to the FIR relating to offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A and 504 IPC and one punishable under Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, lodged by 2 sister of the applicants, who got married to son of the complainant. It is contended that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the respondent to implicate the applicants, in the criminal complaint in the manner as above.

5) At the time of admission of present C-482 petition, a co-ordinate bench of this Court, passed an interim order, vide order dated 07.07.2011, and stayed further proceedings of the criminal complaint case initiated against the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, pending in the court of J.M., Roorkee.

6) There seems to be substance in the contention of learned counsel for the applicants that if criminal proceedings are allowed to be continued against present applicants, the same will amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

7) It will be a futile exercise to keep present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. pending in the court.

8) The Court can intervene in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330; Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander and another 2013 (1) SCC (Crl) 986 and Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs State of Uttarakhand and others (2008) 1 SCC (Crl) 259.

9) Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed. The entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 1804 / 2010, Shamim vs Saidab & others, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar are hereby set aside.

10) Since present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being decided in the absence of the respondent, therefore, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this order, if he feels aggrieved with the same.

(U.C. Dhyani, J.) Dt. June 06, 2017.

Negi