- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) LEARNED Government Advocate accepts notices on behalf of respond ents No. 1 and 2. He prays for and is allowed three weeks' time to file the counter affidavit. Notices on behalf of respondent No. 3 Lalit Kumar Goswami are accepted by Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advo cate, who also prays for and is al lowed three weeks' time to file the counter affidavit. Also, heard on stay applica tion.
(3.) THE first information report ap pears to have been lodged under or der dated 13-11-2007 (copy Annexure-9 to the writ petition), passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 271 of 2007, under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Crimi nal Procedure, 1973, which was reg istered as case Crime No. 444 of 2007, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 506 of I. PC. reg istered with 'police Station Kotwali, District Dehradun. From the first information re port it is clear that admittedly the complainant (respondent No. 3) ob tained a loan from the ICICI bank. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that on receiving notice for recovery from the bank, respondent No. 3 lodged this first information report not only against the petitioner, who is Collection Manager of the ICICI bank, but also against the Chairman and Managing Director of ICICI bank, who are posted at Baroda and Mumbai, re spectively. It is further contended that ingredients of the offences alleged against accused are not made out from the contents of the first informa tion report. Having perused the papers on record and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, prima facie, we are of the view that it is case of abuse of process of law not only on the part of the com plainant (respondent No. 3) but also on the part of the Chief Judicial Mag istrate, Dehradun.;