BAHAWAR SIGNH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer for quashing the entire proceeding including impugned order dated 24.01.2017, passed by learned court of Additional Session Judge / Special Judge E.C. Act, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 190 of 2016 (Bhawar Singh and 8 others Versus State of U.P. through Collector Meerut) and impugned summoning order dated 16.04.2016, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sardhana, District Meerut in Complaint Case No. 84 of 2013 (Veer Singh Versus Bhawar Singh and others), under Section 406 I.P.C., pending in the court of learned Judaical Magistrate, Sardhana, District Meerut.

(2.) Learned counsel for applicants argued that first information report for alleged criminal breach of trust was filed by way of an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by Veer Singh, who was the then Secretary of Sadhu Jagram Smarak Gaushala Samiti, situated in village and post Kapsad, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut. Investigation resulted submission of final report. After that, Veer Singh informant has not filed any protest petition, rather it was Brijpal, who was neither Secretary nor President nor authorized person to file any proceeding in and on behalf of above Committee. This application was treated to be a complaint case, but complainant remained Veer Singh in the proceeding of complaint, whereas statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was got recorded of Brijpal. Brijpal himself was an accused for the same criminal breach of trust, punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. in a report, wherein charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken. Since beginning, it was being said that amount realized from the auction of bullocks could not be deposited in Bank because of the closure hours of Bank, but it was given by President to his younger brother Brijpal for getting in safe till deposit in Bank, but the amount was not deposited. In between, President died. Hence, Brijpal was having no locus to file any protest, because he himself was accused for above misuse of money of society, for which charge sheet was filed, but on the basis of above protest petition this summoning was passed. Moreso, Society had entered in compromise and this application was moved before Magistrate that parties have entered in compromise and complainant does not want to proceed with above proceeding, but this application was rejected by Magistrate, mentioning therein that the protest was filed by Brijpal and summoning was on the protest of Brijpal, hence, this compounding will not be accepted, whereas Brijpal was neither Secretary nor President nor was having any authority for entering in compounding and admittedly money was of above Society and its office bearer had entered in compromise for offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C., which is compoundable in the table under Section 321 Cr.P.C. Hence, on the basis of compromise too, the proceeding ought to be quashed. Moreso, the proceeding is in the misuse of process of law and the summoning was wrong. Hence, this application with above prayer.

(3.) Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application.