Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the process issued against petitioner is liable to be quashed and set aside.

M.R. Shah, J.—The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-original accused, Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank, Regional Office, UCO Bank Bhavan, Ahmedabad to quash and set aside Criminal Case No. 2928/2007, pending in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 22 at Ahmedabad and also the summons/process issued by the said Court against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 166 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts leading to the present application in a nutshell are as under;—

2.1. The original complainant-Respondent No. 1 herein is the widow of one late Shri Popatlal Bhalaji Thakore, an ex-employee of UCO Bank. There was some dispute with respect to family pension, which was not received by her and, therefore, initially she approached the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority and by communication dated 30/07/2001 she was informed to initiate appropriate proceedings by way of Special Civil Application. It appears that thereafter instead of filing Special Civil Application she has filed the impugned criminal complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad against the applicant and one another person for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 166, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code alleging interalia that more than eight years have passed since she became entitled for family pension and the same is not paid and, therefore, the same is not only illegal but it is inhuman also for the applicant-original accused to detain pension of an old widow and, therefore, it was alleged that the applicant and another accused have committed the offences under Section 427, 166, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that initially the learned Magistrate passed an order for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the Elizebridge Police Station to inquire into the same and submit the report. It appears that after the inquiry the investigating Officer of Elizebridge Police Station submitted the report dated 06/10/2005 submitting that no offence has been committed by the applicant and accused persons as alleged. Thereafter, the said report came to be considered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the learned Magistrate by impugned order has not accepted the report submitted by the Investigating Officer and has passed an order to issue summons/process against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 166, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the applicant-original accused No. 2 has preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous application.

3. Shri. Vakharia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original accused No. 2 has vehemently submitted that as such the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 166, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that as such the dispute with respect to family pension was purely civil dispute for which even advice by the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority was given and she was advised to file Special Civil Application but she has filed the impugned Complaint, which is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and law. It is submitted that as such Respondent No. 1-original complainant did not give the option before the relevant date and, therefore, she was not entitled to get the family pension. It is further submitted that as such there are no allegations and averments in the Complaint making out a case for the offences under Sections 427, 166, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, it is requested to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash and set aside the impugned Complaint.

4. Respondent No. 1-original complainant was represented by one Shri. Dayesh Bhatt, learne