IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1111 OF 2003

    DHARAM DEO SHARMA                              Appellant (s)

                       VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                           Respondent(s)

O R D E R

When  the  appellant  was  serving  as  Superintending  Engineer  in  U.P.

Electricity Board, one Vimla Devi filed a complaint on 2.2.1998, alleging that she had

been engaged by the appellant as a maid servant a few days earlier, that on 1.2.1998,

the  appellant  gave  her some  tablet  which made  her unconscious  and  when she

regained consciousness she found that she had no clothes and that she was raped

when she was unconscious. The police investigated and filed a report stating that no

offence, as alleged, has been made out.  The said Vimla Devi filed a protest petition.

After hearing the protest  petition,  learned Chief  Judicial Magistrate,  Saharanpur

made an order on 31.8.1998  summoning the petitioner to  face the charges.   The

appellant made an application for recalling the said order.  The same was rejected by

order dated 11.7.2000.   The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

before the Allahabad High Court   challenging   the   orders   dated   31.8.1998   and  

.......2.

- 2 -

11.7.2000.  The High Court dismissed the petition by order dated 21.8.2000 holding

that the petition was premature and the appellant could raise all contentions at the

appropriate stage.  The said order is challenged in this appeal filed by special leave.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a false case has been set up

against the appellant on account of the strict action taken by him against defaulting

electricity consumers. He also submitted that the police had found that he had not

committed  the  offence  and  his  contentions  were  not  considered  by  the  learned

Magistrate while ordering summons.   

3. We find that the High Court found that it  could not  interfere with the

summoning order, in view of the specific averment in the complaint.  We also find

that the High Court has safeguarded  the interest of the appellant with the following

observation:-

“However,  considering  the  fact  that  the applicant  has  been  summoned  on  the  basis  of  the protest  petition and he being Chief  Engineer in the Electricity Department, is not likely to abscond,  it is provided  that  in  case  the  applicant  surrenders  and apply  for  

......3.

- 3 -

bail in the aforesaid case, then his application shall be considered  and  disposed  of  by  the  courts  below expeditiously in accordance with law preferable on the day.”

We are  told  that  subsequently  the  appellant  has  retired  from service  as  Chief

Engineer of the Electricity Board.

4.  In  the  circumstance,  we  find  no  ground  to  interfere  with  the  order.

Therefore, we dispose of this appeal reiterating the observation that if the appellant

surrenders and applies for bail, his application shall be considered and disposed of by

the learned Magistrate on the same day having regard to the peculiar facts of the case.

.....................J. (R.V. RAVEENDRAN)       

.....................J.       (P. SATHASIVAM)

NEW DELHI; JUNE 26, 2008.