Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1025 (PNJ)

Ajit Sharma v. Meenu Singh Dhindsa

2006-03-10

NIRMAL YADAV

body2006
Judgment Nirmal Yadav, J. 1. Petitioners Ajit Sharma, Anita Sharma and Kishan Chand have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint dated 19.2.2002 (Annexure P-2) filed by respondent Meenu Singh Dhindsa and summoning order passed therein dated 25.1.2003 (Annexure P-3) whereby the petitioners along with 3 others have been summoned to face trial under Sections 420/460/506 IPC. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent Meenu Singh Dhindsa filed a complaint against the petitioners and 3 others stating that on 25.2.2001 her landlord Ajit Sharma came to her house and offered to send her son to America for which expenses to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs would be incurred. It is stated that initially the complainant gave Rs. 50,000/- in the office of petitioners at Amritsar and also gave them photograph and photostat copies of ration card and matriculation certificate in the presence of her sister and her husband. She was assured that her sons tickets and passport would be arranged within three months. On 1.11.2001 when complainant along with her husband allegedly went to the house of petitioners to enquire about the passport and visa, they were asked to give them Rs. 25,000/- and to arrange the balance amount within 10 days. On the assurance given by the petitioners, respondent gave Rs. 25,000/- to Anita Sharma, petitioner No. 2 and since then the complainant had been enquiring from the petitioners about the visa and passport. When petitioners did not arrange either the passport or visa for a considerable time, respondent asked for return of money, but the petitioners kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, on 25.1.2002, petitioners flatly refused to return the money or to make any arrangement for sending her son abroad. 3. Besides appearing in the witness box before the Magistrate, the complainant also produced Ravinder Kumar and Narinder Singh in support of he case and closed her evidence. Taking into consideration the evidence and facts on record, the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioners to face trial under Sections 420/460/506 IPC vide order dated 25.1.2003 (Annexure P-3). 4. The petitioners have challenged the summoning order as well as the complaint filed by the respondent. It is stated that respondent Meenu Singh Dhindsa was inducted as tenant in the house of petitioners Ajit Sharma and Anita Sharma by an oral tenancy. 4. The petitioners have challenged the summoning order as well as the complaint filed by the respondent. It is stated that respondent Meenu Singh Dhindsa was inducted as tenant in the house of petitioners Ajit Sharma and Anita Sharma by an oral tenancy. Afterwards, ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was filed by the petitioners for ejectment of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and creating nuisance in the house by her act and conduct. The aforesaid rent petition was accepted by the Rent Controller vide order dated 1.8.2001. The respondent was ordered to be ejected from the demised premises and she was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises within 3 months from the date of order. It is further pleaded that after passing of ejectment order against her, the complainant has filed the present complaint as a counter-blast in order to harass the petitioner. It is pleaded that in the above circumstances, it was highly improbable that petitioners would approach the complainant with an offer to send her son abroad on payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- and complainant would accept the offer and pay Rs. 50,000/-. When the parties were in litigation and petitioners had filed ejectment petition which was accepted on 1.8.2001, it was not possible that respondent would agree to the proposal of sending her son abroad by the petitioners and for that purpose would give the money as alleged. It is well known that when an ejectment petition is instituted, the relations between the landlord and tenant become strained and in such a situation no tenant would hand over such a huge amount to the landlord for sending his/her son abroad. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent for 7.10.2003. However, none appeared on her behalf despite service. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record. 6. Learned counsel pointed out that complainant had approached SHO, Police Station Vijay Nagar vide Annexure P-4 stating that on 27.5.1996 when she along with her husband was away to market, landlord Ajit Sharma and his father had abused her children and threatened to vacate the house. 6. Learned counsel pointed out that complainant had approached SHO, Police Station Vijay Nagar vide Annexure P-4 stating that on 27.5.1996 when she along with her husband was away to market, landlord Ajit Sharma and his father had abused her children and threatened to vacate the house. She further referred to Annexure P-5 whereby respectable persons of the colony have written a Majorman to the effect that Ajit Sharma is landlord of Meenu, complainant and that there is no fault on the part of Ajit Sharma. Meenu is giving false complaints. It is submitted that filing of complaint is totally misuse of process of law and it amounts to causing unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. It is further argued that the complainant has failed to disclose the source from where the money, allegedly paid to petitioners, was arranged. Learned counsel further argued that admittedly, Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are landlords and respondent Meenu was a tenant in their house. It is also undisputed that an ejectment petition was filed by the petitioners in the month of May 1996, which was decided in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 1.8.2001 and due to that litigation the parties had strained relations. The instant complaint has been filed by the respondent on 19.2.2002 alleging that petitioners came to her house on 25.2.2001 and offered to send her son abroad whereupon she paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and subsequently, another sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 1.11.2001. It is highly improbable that respondent who was at loggerheads with the petitioners would repose faith in them especially when the ejectment petition had already been decided against the respondent on 1.8.2001. Moreover, the respondent had also been making complaints against the petitioners to the police. It is, therefore, pointed out that it is not probable that respondent would repose faith in the petitioners. In these circumstances, the allegations made in the complaint appear to be quite absurd and baseless which have been concocted merely as a counter-blast with an oblique motive to wreck vengeance on the petitioners. 7. I have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and facts on record. 8. In these circumstances, the allegations made in the complaint appear to be quite absurd and baseless which have been concocted merely as a counter-blast with an oblique motive to wreck vengeance on the petitioners. 7. I have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and facts on record. 8. It is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage, is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made, prima facie establish the offence ot not. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue as the Courts cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and after taking into consideration the Court may quash the proceedings even at the preliminary (stage ?). 9. The Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991 (1) RCR(Criminal) 383 : AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, formed certain categories of cases wherein the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or in exercise of extra-ordinary powers Article 226 of the Constitution of India can quash a first information report or a complaint. The categories of cases defined by the Apex Court are as under :- "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a Criminal Proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 10. A perusal of categories No. 5 and 7 clearly shows that if criminal proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive or where allegations made in the complaint are absurd and improbable, the Court would be within its power to quash the complaint. 11. In the present case, as discussed above, the complaint has been filed after the ejectment petition had been decided against the complainant. It is also highly improbable that during the pendency of the ejectment petition, the complainant would accept the offer made by the petitioners-landlords, to send her son abroad and would give them the money as demanded by them. To my mind, the present complaint has been maliciously instituted as a counter-blast. The allegations made in the complaint appear to be so absurd that no reasonable man would ever accept the same. Therefore, exercise of inherent powers in the facts and circumstances of the present case would be quite justifiable. 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and complaint dated 19.2.2002 (Annexure P-2) as well as summoning order dated 25.1.2003 (Annexure P-3) are hereby quashed.