JUDGMENT V. P. Bhatnagar, J —If there can be a storm in a cup of tea, the present case amply demonstrates it. 2. One Keshav Oass filed a private complaint against applicant Ganesh Dutt Bharwal under sections 406, 409, 4i9, 420, 457, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Arab, in the year 1^86. The allegations, briefly put, were that the accused representing himself as an agent of Congress (I) Party approached him on 27-12-1985 and collected a sum of Rs. 26 (Sic Rs. 24) from him. The accused issued Receipt No. 15666 in token of the receipt of membership fee and duly signed it. The complainant later on came to know that the fee had not been deposited with the office of the Himachal Pradesh Congress Committee after which he approached the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh as also the Permanent Secretary of Congress (1) Himachal Pradesh wherefrom he learnt that no printed receipt books had been issued, particularly any book containing receipt numbering 15666. Thus the accused misrepresented himself as agent of Congress (I) competent to collect membership fee and also deceitfully obtained Rs. 26 (Rs. 24) from the complainant and cheated him to that extent. 3. After recording preliminary evidence the learned trial Court summoned the accused to stand trial for offences under sections 406/420/ 467/468/471, I. P. C. The date fixed in the Court was 25-5-1987. 4. The present Criminal, Misc. Petition (Main) was filed in this Court by the accused (Shri Ganesh Dutt Bharwal) on 16-5-1987. It was prayed by him that the complaint as also the notices issued to him in pursuance thereof be quashed mainly on the ground that the complaint was due to political rivalry between two groups of Congress (1) and that no offence had been made out and that the entire proceedings smacked of mala fides. 5. The case was admitted for hearing on 22-5-1987 when an order was passed calling for the record of the trial Court. No orders were made on the application praying for stay of the proceedings before the lower Court on the ground that the record of the case had been summoned. 5. The case was admitted for hearing on 22-5-1987 when an order was passed calling for the record of the trial Court. No orders were made on the application praying for stay of the proceedings before the lower Court on the ground that the record of the case had been summoned. It is manifest that the record of the trial Court was thereafter requisitioned and received in the High Court Registry and has since been lying over herewith the result that the trial, as a necessary corollary, stood suspended. 6. I have perused the detailed averments made in the petition filed before this Court which are duly supported by an affidavit. The applicant and one Shri Ram Rakha Mall are stated to have staked their claims for the Congress (1) ticket during 1985 Elections to the Assembly. It so appears that the ticket was allotted to the applicant in preference to Shri Ram Rakha Mall. Respondent 1, who lodged the complaint in the Court of the Magistrate at Amb, is stated to be a supporter of Shri Ram Rakha Mall and the purpose was only to malign the applicant. As regards the merits, the collection of the sum of Rs. 24 is admitted. It is stated that the applicant in fact went to the District Headquarters of the Congress (I) to deposit this amount but found that respondent 1 had already filled in another membership application and deposited the fee therefor also. In those circumstances the party office refused to accept the second application form as also the duplicate membershipfee. The applicant thereafter tried to pay back this amount to respondent 1 Keshav Dass who would not accept it. 7. The case has come up before this Court today for hearing final arguments. I find that none is present for respondent Keshav Dass before this Court, the reason for which can be that he has lost all interest in this litigation due to lapse of considerable time. It has to be borne in mind that the incident relates to 1985, the complaint was instituted in 1986 and we are now in the year 1991. Couppled with it, the quantum of amount involved of Rs. It has to be borne in mind that the incident relates to 1985, the complaint was instituted in 1986 and we are now in the year 1991. Couppled with it, the quantum of amount involved of Rs. 24 makes somewhat mockery of the entire case I find myself in agreement with the statement made by the applicant in para 16 of his petition to the effect that "Can the petitioner be expected to grab the money of respondent No. 1 that too only Rs. 24 ?" 8. Be that as it may I am of the firm view that these criminal proceedings do not merit to be kept alive even after lapse of as many as 6 years, specially keeping in view the provisions of section 95 of the Indian Penal Code relating to an act causing slight harm. Assuming that the harm has been caused, I think it is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would go to such a length to complain about it- The case appears to have political connotation and, in any case, is likely to result in much wastage of Court time without serving any useful purpose. This sordid chapter, therefor, deserves to be closed forthwith. 9. In view of the above discussion this petition is accepted and the notice summoning the applicant to stand trial as also the criminal proceedings comprised in case No. 23-1/1987 instituted on 10-9-1986 pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amb, Districtc Una, are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.