High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 07 UK CK 0099

Hamid Ali vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 5 July 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prafulla C. Pant, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 337 words

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.

2.

By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2815 of 2007, State v. Hamid Ali and Anr., relating to offences punishable u/s 409, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a Chairman of Nagar Panchayat, Kelakhera. It is pleaded that even if the allegations made against the petitioner are taken to be true, it does not constitute criminal liability on the part of the petitioner. It is pleaded that whatever acts are alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, are in fact done in accordance with the Resolution passed by the Nagar Panchayat Kelakhera. The complainants on whose behest the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed respondent No. 6 Tehsildar to lodge the report, were themselves present in the meeting of Nagar Panchayat in which the Resolution were passed. It is contended that in such circumstance, the impugned criminal proceedings are nothing but simple harassment of the petitioner, as the persons who passed the resolution were equally responsible for the act done in compliance of the Resolution. It is further pleaded that no amount has been spent by the petitioner for his own cause and everything has been done in the public interest.

4.

Admit the petition.

5.

Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 prays for and is allowed six weeks time to file the counter affidavit.

6.

List after six weeks.

7.

Meanwhile, as an interim measure it is directed that further proceedings in the Criminal Case No. 2815 of 2007 State v. Hamid Ali and Anr., relating to offences punishable under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, as against the petitioner are stayed till the next date of listing.