AMITABH SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner Amitabh Shrivastava has sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No.1823 of 2004, Ruchi Kshetri vs. Amitabh Shrivastava, relating to offences punishable under section 354, and 506, I.P.C., pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one turned up on behalf of the respondent no.2, at the time of final hearing.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Ruchi Kshetri (complainant) filed a criminal complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, which was registered as criminal complaint case no. 655 of 2005, in which she alleged that she was a teacher in BHATKHANDE HINDUSTANI SANGEET MAHAVIDHYALYA. She had pleaded that earlier she was posted in Pauri but considering her family circumstances, she was attached at Dehradun. On 02.04.2004, according to her, she asked to meet the respondent Amitabh Shrivastava, Director of Department of Culture. She went to meet him. She has alleged that the present petitioner (accused) started appreciating her beauty and thereafter molested her. The complainant (present respondent no.2) in her criminal complaint further alleged that she ran out of the office of the petitioner, and made attempts to make complaint to the Chief Minister but to no avail. Ultimately, she filed the present criminal complaint on 20.04.2004. The criminal complaint appears to have been transferred to the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. The Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, after recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C., and that of witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the petitioner Amitabh Shrivastava, vide his order dated 08.02.2005, to face the trial in respect of offences punishable under section 354, and 506 I.P.C. Hence this petition is by the accused, challenging the summoning order and the proceedings of the criminal complaint case.