Raj Kumar Miglani and Rajesh Jagga vs Shri Ram Agarwal and State of Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand)

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—This is delay condonation application No. 661 of 2011, for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.

Perused the affidavit filed with the delay condonation application, and the copy of death certificate of Petitioner No. 2 Rajesh Jagga which is filed as Annex. 1 to the affidavit filed with the delay condonation application.

The delay condonation application is allowed. Delay is condoned.

Also heard on restoration application for restoration of criminal miscellaneous application (C482) No. 240 of 2005, which was dismissed for non prosecution on 27.03.2010.

In view of principle of law laid down in Madhumilan Syntax v. Union of India AIR 2007 SCW 1971, the restoration application is allowed on the condition that the petition shall be heard on merits today itself, as the petition is old. The petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is stand restored with that condition.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the petition filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, and perused the copy of criminal complaint, proceedings which are challenged by the Petitioners.

Copy of criminal complaint shows that the complainant runs grain business in the name and style of M/s Kanhaiya Lal in Rudrapur. He supplied paddy to Jeewan Rice and General Mills owned by Petitioner in the year 2003, valued of Rs. 56,52,004/-. However payment was received only of Rs. fifteen lac, as such outstanding payment was Rs. 41,52,004/-. Criminal complaint further discloses that there after complainant rang on phone to the Petitioners who declined to make payment of the paddy.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that from the contents of complaint itself it is clear that it is a case of civil liability, and the Petitioners who are Respondent of Kaithal, Haryana , are implicated in the criminal case only to pressurize them to make the payment. It is contended that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the Petitioner for the above purposes. There is no entrustment of any property as such ingredients of offences punishable u/s 403 and 406 IPC, are not made out.

Having considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, and after going through the copy of criminal complaint, this Court finds that the impugned criminal complaint is nothing simple abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant. Had there been some deception played or some entrustment made or some forgery allegedly committed by the Petitioner, it could have been said that the criminal liability in the above transaction got attracted. However, there is no such allegation in the criminal complaint.

For the reasons, as discussed above, this petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, is allowed. Proceedings of impugned criminal complaint case No. 366 of 2004, Sri Ram Agarwal v. Raj Kumar Miglani and Anr., relating to offences punishable u/s 403, 506 IPC, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed.