2025:UHC:8901 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C) No. 1606 of 2016 Sandeep Kumar Rawat and others -------Applicants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others -----------Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Mr. Paratiroop Pande, learned AGAs and Mr. Pradeep Lohni, Brief Holder for the State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.(oral) Present Criminal Misc. Application under Section C-482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 22.08.2015, summoning order dated 10.05.2016, passed in the Criminal Case No. 1630 of 2016, State vs. Ashok Kumar and others, under Sections 3 Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984 (PDPP) Act and the entire proceedings, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2. That as per the case of the applicants, they were working in the office of Indian Hume Pipe Company Ltd. Mumbai having its project office at 8-G Kandoli, Dehradun and were indulged in the project for construction of water pipe line carried out by the I.H.P. Co. Ltd; that an agreement was made on 20.03.2013 between Uttarakhand Urban Sector Development Agency (UUSDA), Government of Uttarakhand represented by the 1 2025:UHC:8901 Project Manager, Programme Implementation Unit-I (PIU- 1) Uttarakhand Urban Sector Development Investment Programme(UUSDIP) and M/S I.H.P. Co. Ltd. Construction House -5 Walchand Heerachand Road, Ballard Estate Mumbai for supplying, laying, jointing, testing and commissioning of clear water reservoir to Over Head Tanks i.e. for laying of water pipeline; that according to terms and conditions of the contract the I.H.P. Co. Ltd had to perform the work according to the approved design and drawing under the supervision, direction, consultation of the P.I.U.-1; that the I.H.P. Co. Ltd./contractor completed 15.6 Kms. of water pipelines with the satisfaction of the employer and only 2.8 Km. of water pipeline was remained to be completed; that when company was carrying out work nearby Dilaram Bazar, Dehradun under the direction and supervision of PIU-1, it was informed by the Police Station Dalanwala on 03.08.2015 that FIR was lodged by Constable Vinod Kumar Police Chowki Hathi Badkala against them and called the applicants for interrogation at Police station Dalanwala; that on the same day when the applicants visited the Police Station Dalanwala they were misbehaved by police personnel and were informed that a FIR in case crime no. 126 of 2015 under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984 has been lodged against the applicants/company and notices were served under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2008 and applicants were directed not to leave the station without prior permission; that before executing the work the project implementation unit Uttarakhand obtained permission for cutting the road for laying the pipeline which was granted vide letter dated 13.11.2014 with certain conditions. 2 2025:UHC:8901 3. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the issue with regard to the FIR being lodged against the applicants was brought to the notice of the District Magistrate by the Project Manager on 09.09.2015 and even in the meeting held on 03.09.2015 in the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, the matter was deliberated and at clause-4 of the minutes of the meeting the following observations were made: “4-iSdst la[;k WSSO5DN & iSdst ds d‚UVªsDVj M/s LH-P- Ltd- ds çfrfuf/k;ksa }kjk voxr djk;k fd- Price Escalation lEcfU/kr ,d ns;d yxHkx ,d o"kZ ls vf/kd ls Pending gSA ifj;kstuk çcU/kd }kjk voxr djk;k x;k fd Escalation ls lEofU/kr i`"B eq[; d‚UVªsDV esa ugha gS rFkk GCC dh 'krksa ds vuqlkj ;fn bl çdkj dk Escalation dk dksbZ çko/kku ugha gks gks rks Escalation ugha fn;k tk,xkA M/SIH-P- Ltd- ds çfrfuf/k }kjk nkok fd;k x;k fd muds ikl Escalation clause lE;U/kh vfHkys[k miyC/k gSA bl ij eq[; lfpo }kjk vfHkys[kksa dk ifj{k.k djrs gq, ,d lIrkg ds vanj ns;dksa ds Hkqxrku lqfuf'pr fd, tkus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA blh çdkj Road Restoration ls lEcfU/kr lHkh dk;ksaZ dk Hkqxrku Hkh ,d lIrkg esa fd;k tkuk lqfuf'pr djus ds funsZ'k fn, x,A dEiuh ds çfrfuf/k;ksa }kjk ;g Hkh f'kdk;r dh xbZ fd jktiqj {ks= esa [kqnkbZ dk dk;Z djus ij M/s I-H-P- ds çfrfuf/k;ksa ds fo:) FIR ntZ dh xbZ gSA eq[; lfpo }kjk bl ij xgjk valrks"k O;ä djrs gq, lfpo “kgjh fodkl dks funsZf'kr fd;k fd os rRdky bl lEcU/k esa DM/SSP] Dehradun ds lkFk cSBd dj bl çdj.k dk fuLrkj.k djsa ” 4. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the necessary permission for cutting the road and laying the pipes was with the department and work was carried out within the stipulated period and there was neither any complaint from any public person nor from any Government department. He further submits that the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance in a proforma of summoning order without applying his judicial mind. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned summoning order, it is evident that no reasons have been recorded by the 3 2025:UHC:8901 learned Magistrate as to whether any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. Moreover, the Chief Secretary in its meeting held on 03.09.2015 itself had taken a serious view and had directed the Secretary to talk with the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendant of Police, Dehradun and to resolve the matter. Thus, the learned Magistrate had to examine the documentary evidence available on record prior to the issuance of the summoning order. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Food Ltd. and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749, has held in para 28 of the judgment as hereunder:- “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima 4 2025:UHC:8901 facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandran Ratnaswami vs. K.C.Palanisamy and others in para 39 and 47 has held as hereunder: “39. This Court in State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, (1977) 2 SCC 699 observed that the wholesome power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature. It was held in this case: (SCC P.703, para 7) “7. …..In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the 5 2025:UHC:8901 prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.” This case has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this Court and other courts. 8. In view of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, the C-482 application is allowed. Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 22.08.2015, summoning order dated 10.05.2016, passed in the Criminal Case No. 1630 of 2016, State vs. Ashok Kumar and others, under Sections 3 PDPP Act and the entire proceedings, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, are hereby quashed. (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 06.10.2025 Kaushal 6