Jaipal Singh and another vs Dharam Singh

Hon''ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—Since both the petitions challenge the same order of cognizance dated 14.02.2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, hence, these are being disposed of by this common judgment. A complaint was launched by Dharam Singh, being a social worker, stating therein that Government funds have been misused by way of granting cheque of Rs. 14,000/- to differently abled persons namely Satish Kumar and Munesh (wife of Satish Kumar) after solemnization of their marriage. District Social Welfare Officer has Account to distribute this money to every differently abled persons, who married to each other. The marriage was reported to be solemnized on 22.10.1997 and the application was moved by this couple, after few years of their marriage. Favourable endorsements were made by concerned Village Panchayat Development Officer, Gram Pradhan and others, so District Social Welfare Officer sanctioned the amount of Rs. 14,000/- to this couple.

Dharam Singh, who is resident of same village, preferred different complaints to District Social Welfare Officer and District Magistrate but nothing could be yielded favourably to Dharam Singh. He then instituted a complaint case no. 4191 of 2007 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar against as many as 28 persons including the then District Social Welfare Officer, Social Welfare Observer, Village Panchayat Development Officer, Naib Tehsildar, Pradhan, Deputy Pradhan, Members of Regional Development Committee and many more persons, who attended the marriage of couple. This complaint was instituted on 04.08.2007. He himself examined u/s 200 Cr. P.C. and the learned Magistrate passed the order of cognizance dated 14.02.2008 asking all the accused persons to stand trial for the various offences of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been contended on behalf of the applicants that Dharam Singh is a resident of same village and after solemnization of marriage, he started moving many complaints to District Social Welfare Officer, when nothing could come out of these complaints, then he launched this complaint after more than ten years of the said marriage.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent has drawn attention of this Court towards the voter list of the village. This list pertains to year 1995 in which Satish Kumar and Munesh have been adverted as husband and wife, so if they really married on 22.10.1997 then how their names could be shown in the voter list of 1995 as husband and wife.

Be that as it may, marriage has not been denied and it has also not been denied that one of the spouses is not differently abled. The only difference is ''year of marriage'', so this Court feels that there is no cheating in the matter and Government fund has not been misused. The complaint filed by respondent Dharam Singh is frivolous one, due to local grudge nurtured in him against the villagers. In the above conspectus, both the petitions are allowed. Impugned summoning order dated 14.02.2008 and entire proceedings of complaint case no. 4191 of 2007 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar are hereby quashed.