Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 332 (JK)

Naresh Bhatia v. Surinder Kumar

2005-12-01

J.P.SINGH

body2005
1. This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt., 1989 (hereinafter referred as Procedure Code), seeks quashing of proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Sub-Judge), Jammu, under Sections 504/506 of Ranbir Penal Code (hereinafter referred as Penal Code). 2. Sh.S.K.Shukla, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, submit that the complaint of the respondent, does not make out any case for the infraction of offences punishable under the Penal Code. He submits that complaint filed by the respondents has resulted in abuse of the process of the Court. 3. In order to appreciate the submission of learned counsel, perusal of the complaint becomes necessary. The complainant has alleged to have purchased a Photostat Machine through SC/ST/OBC Development Corporation Limited, on account of Self Scheme. It is stated that Photostat Machine was purchased in 1996 whereafter an agreement was entered into by the parties whereby respondent had agreed to provide maintenance and services, in accordance with the terms of the agreement. 4. It is further stated that said contract was revised and previous rate of 29 paise per copy was increased to 35 paise per copy. It is alleged that despite agreeing to charge 31 paise per copy, Kapil Dhar, the new agent of the company has started charging 33 paise by blackmailing the complainant and providing insufficient service. 5. The complainant submits that despite over-charging by the agent, the complainant remained mearly as a spectator, fearing that Photostat Machine may not become inoperative in case of complaint. It is stated that a bill for an amount of Rs.37, 857.07 was floated by the company and a threat is alleged to have been extended that in case the bill is not paid by the complainant, the complainant would suffer. The complainant further stated that malafide and dishonest intention, intend to issuance of bill by proprietor of Kay Tech Copier System as an authorized agent of Naresh Bhatia, another bill has been issued in the name of a fictitious firm namely Kay Tech Systems, which is stated to have been done to cheat the complainant. This bill is stated to have been paid by the complainant, which the complainant submits, makes the respondent guilty of cheating. 6. This bill is stated to have been paid by the complainant, which the complainant submits, makes the respondent guilty of cheating. 6. The complaint concludes by saying that the complainant approached and narrated the whole story but instead of redressing the genuine grievances of the complainant, he started abusing and threatening the complainant to dire consequences, as such, he cheated the complainant by acting dishonestly and fraudulently succeeded in inducing the complainant to deliver the amount. 7. I have considered the various paragraphs of the complaint. The complaint does not make out either the date of alleged commission of any agreement or omission, nor does it spell out contents/allegations requisite for attracting Section 503 of the Penal Code, which defines criminal intimidation, nor Section 504 of the Penal Code, which provide punishment for intentional insult with intend to provoke breach of peace. 8. On the other hand, the reading of the complaint demonstrates only limited grievance of the complainant, i.e., that he is alleged to have been refused payment, which had been allegedly received by the accused, through their agent, over and above, agreed rate for giving services. 9. I am of the firm opinion that such a dispute cannot be resolved by the criminal Courts. No offence is made out on the basis of the accusations levelled by the complainant/respondent against the petitioners. Allegations in complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence. 10. Continuous of proceedings before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Sub-Judge), Jammu, would, thus, result in abuse of the process of the Court. 11. I, therefore, in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the court, quash the proceedings, pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Sub-Judge), Jammu. The complaint filed by the respondent is dismissed and respondent released. This petition is, accordingly, allowed.