DILIP KAPSE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred the present petition under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to get the proceedings of the criminal case No. 982/2007 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Harda to be quashed. The facts of the case, in short, are that, the respondent No. 2 had lodged a criminal complaint against four persons including the applicant, who at that time was working as Food Officer at Harda. Harda was affected by flood and the Government provided 1500 quintals wheat in August, 2004 to distribute such wheat amongst the flood affected persons @ 35 kgs. per family. Wheat was to be distributed at the cost, which was applicable to the BPL persons. The complainant asked about the distribution of wheat but, the applicant gave no satisfactory answer. The complainant wrote a letter dated 23.4.2005 for the enquiry relating to distribution of 1500 quintals of wheat. In continuation to his complaint, enquiry was initiated but, the accused persons threatened the witnesses and therefore, no appropriate enquiry could be done. The complainant tried to get the certified copy of various documents relating to the distribution of 1500 quintals of wheat but, he could not get any document. Misappropriation of wheat was duly published in various newspapers dated 23.3.2005. The complainant wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary to get the permission for prosecution against the applicant but, he could not get any permission. Ultimately, he had lodged a criminal complaint before the Magisterial Court.

(2.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Harda after recording the evidence of various witnesses under sections 200 and 202 of the Cr. P.C. sent the file to record room vide order dated 25.11.2006 because no sanction was received under section 197 of the Cr. P.C. but, thereafter, vide order dated 15.6.2007, the learned Sessions Judge directed that no sanction was required for registration of the case then, vide order dated 18.6.2007, the complaint was registered for offence punishable under section 409 of IPC against the applicant and accused No. 3 Food Inspector H.M. Khuraiyya, Harda.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. None appeared for the respondent No. 2 though notice of the petition was served to him. Ultimately, an SPC was issued for the date 28.11.2013 but, no Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and therefore, the matter was heard finally with the pretext that the respondent No. 2 was not interested to contest the matter.