The burden of proof for establishing a plea of alibi lies on the accused, and the court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised cautiously to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

N.S. Dhanik, J.

1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred to quash the Complaint Case No. 905/2015 and the summoning order dated 7.12.2015 passed therein by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. Background facts of the case, necessary to be noted for deciding the present criminal miscellaneous application are:-

2.1 The applicant is the Managing Director of a non-banking financial company Satin Creditcare Network Ltd. engaged in microfinance business, having its registered office in Delhi and which has one of its branches situated and functioning at Sitarganj in District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. Complainant and her colleagues availed the facility of group finance from the said branch of this company.

2.2 Respondent no. 2 instituted the impugned complaint case before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. Respondent no. 2 averred in the complaint that she herself availed loan and helped other poor women in availing the loan in group from the said company and thus she came in contact with the accused persons, who assured her to give employment in the said branch of the company. On 17.5.2015, the complainant received the message of Branch Manager (Subhash Babu) that boss is coming from Delhi and he asked her to come to Sitarganj as the issue of her employment would be finalized. At about 3 PM on that day, the complainant along with her three years old son reached in the office of the said company in Sitarganj and all the three accused persons were present there at that time. While extending the hospitality to the complainant, the accused persons gave her some spiked stuff to eat and on the pretext of having lunch, the accused persons along with the complainant left for the hotel in a car. While travelling, the accused persons tried to outrage the modesty of the complainant and asked her to compromise and make the applicant happy and they would give her permanent job. Suspecting their intentions, the complainant de-boarded the car on the pretext of getting some water for her son and thereafter she ran towards the crowd. On seeing this, the accused persons escaped in the car and thus the complainant rescued herself. The complainant also averred in her complaint that she reported the incident to the Police Station Nanakmatta and also sent letter to the Superintendent of Police, but no action was taken in the matter. Ultimately, she filed the complaint before the Court below.

2.3 After recording the statements of the complainant and her witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively and also considering the documentary evidence, the Court below vide the impugned order dated 7.12.2015 summoned all the three accused persons including the present applicant to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.

2.4 Aggrieved, the applicant has challenged the proceedings of the said complaint case and the summoning order passed therein.

3. The accused applicant before this Court has taken the plea of alibi. It is the contention of the applicant that on the alleged date of incident, he was not in India as he had left India on 9th May, 2015 for Frankfurt and arrived back to India on 25th May, 2015, which proves that the allegations against the applicant are false and frivolous. Learned Counsel for the applicant, during the course of hearing, produced the applicant's original passport containing the entries of immigration check at the time of arrival and departure of travelling abroad on the aforementioned dates. Copy of the said document is available on the record.

4. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the applicant that the document (passport) produced by the applicant, in support of his plea of alibi, is unimpeachable evidence and hence the impugned proceeding against the applicant is the gross abuse of the process of law. Learned Counsel for the applicant attracted attention o