YOGRAJ Vs. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUROLA, DISTT. UTTARKASHI
LAWS(UTN)-2012-6-68
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on June 08,2012

Yograj And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Judicial Magistrate, Purola, Distt. Uttarkashi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a prayer has been advanced to quash the order of cognizance dated 4.10.2007, and the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 174 of 2007, titled as 'Matbar Singh Vs. Amrit Singh & others', pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Purola, Uttarakashi. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the private respondent Matbar Singh is a contractor who entered into an agreement with petitioners Yograj and Amrit Singh to install a communication tower of Hutch Company. Both the petitioners are employees of the said company. The entire contract was for a consideration of Rs. 2,63,500/ -. For this purpose, a deed too was drafted on 26.11.2006 between the parties. The respondent no. 2, since did not have adequate infrastructure with him, invited his other associates Rajendra Singh and Ravinder Singh, as partners with him, to execute the proposed work. The dispute arose between the company and the private respondent on the 2 question of payment, for which Matbar Singh instituted a complaint case u/s 420 IPC. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and issued summons to the petitioners for the offence of Section 420 IPC.
(2.) IT has been contended on behalf of petitioners that the private respondent himself made full and final settlement by receiving a Draft No. 894609 dated 5.2.2007 worth Rs. 65,000/ - and has given in writing that nothing was due upon the company then. In the counter affidavit, Matbar Singh himself has accepted his signatures upon the said settlement, a photocopy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the petition, but his version is that the contents of this paper are farce, The contention of the respondent is not acceptable because firstly, there was no offence of Section 420 IPC made out against the petitioners. Secondly, the respondent himself has accepted his signatures on this document which resembles with rest of the script drafted on the said document. So, it was a clear -cut abuse of the process of law on the part of the respondent no. 2 Matbar Singh. The petition has force and liable to be allowed. Petition is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned order of cognizance dated 4.10.2007, as also the proceedings of criminal case no. 174 of 2007, titled as "Matbar Singh Vs. Amrit Singh and others", pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Purola, District Uttarakashi, are hereby quashed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.