JUDGMENT T.P.S. MANN, J. 1. Petitioners were summoned on 1.3.2005 in a private complaint dated 25.9.1997 to face trial under Sections 379 and 420 IPC. They have filed the present petition seeking quashing of the complaint as well as the summoning order. 2. While filing the complaint, Piara Singh stated that he was working as a salesman in the Sohana Coop. Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Sohana since 1978, whereas accused Chhottu Singh was working as. Secretary. On account of some party faction in the village, differences arose between the complainant and the accused. The latter joined hands with Bhupinder Singh, Sewadar and Marin Singh, President of the said society. On 24.6.1997, the accused handed over certified copy of the resolution to the complainant, stating therein that the complainant had been suspended from the society. On the following day, the complainant distributed kerosene to the residents of the village against their ration cards. On 26.6.1997, the accused asked the complainant to, hand-over the charge of the important items to him. Accordingly, the complainant handed-over the complete charge of the important items to the accused and there was no deficiency in the same. The complainant asked the accused to take over the charge of the fertilizer and pesticides also, but he put off the same by saying that he was short of time and would take the charge later on. On 22.7.1997, the complainant received the charge sheet from the President of the society along with the list of the items of which the charge ‘was given by the complainant to the accused and also the stock position of the fertilizer and pesticides shown as on 3.6.1997 and alleged to have been handed over by the complainant to the accused. The complainant had not given any charge of fertilizer and pesticides to the accused till that date and the signatures of the complainant appearing on the report had been forged by the accused. The stock position of the fertilizer and pesticides did not bear the signature of the complainant himself, but they were forged by the accused. This document had been prepared by the accused, knowing fully well that it was a forged document, prepared with the intention to cheat the complainant, besides harming his reputation. The stock position of the fertilizer and pesticides did not bear the signature of the complainant himself, but they were forged by the accused. This document had been prepared by the accused, knowing fully well that it was a forged document, prepared with the intention to cheat the complainant, besides harming his reputation. After the receipt of the charge sheet, the complainant came to know that the accused in connivance with the Sewadar and President of the Society had broken open the lock of the room, in which fertilizer and pesticides were stored and also mis-appropriated the money so realized by the sale of those two items. The accused had done this act by breaking-open the lock in the absence of the complainant and without his permission. Right from the day, on which the complainant was served with the suspension order till the time, the complaint was filed, the complainant had been asking the accused to allow’ him to mark his presence in the attendance register, but the accused did not allow him, nor allowed him to enter the office of the Society. 3. After presentation of the complaint, the complainant was asked to produce witnesses in support of the allegations. The complainant examined Jassi Anand, Document Expert as CW-1 and himself as CW-2 in preliminary evidence. The allegations mentioned in the complaint were reiterated and various documents were proved on record. The complainant, thereafter, closed his preliminary evidence. 4. After going through the evidence and considering the facts of the case, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar summoned the accused for offences under Sections 379 and 420 IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complainant was divested of his official duty in the presence of the officials of the Society and the Society had, thereafter, sold the goods. The income realized there from was fully reflected in the account books of the Society. The Society had found the complainant responsible for embezzling the property of the Society and was, thus, placed under suspension. On 3.6.1997, Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Punjab along with other officials of the Society, conducted a physical verification of the stocks maintained by the complainant and had. Found that he had made huge embezzlements thereof. A report thereof was made and the charge of all the important items including fertilizer and pesticides was taken from the complainant. On 3.6.1997, Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Punjab along with other officials of the Society, conducted a physical verification of the stocks maintained by the complainant and had. Found that he had made huge embezzlements thereof. A report thereof was made and the charge of all the important items including fertilizer and pesticides was taken from the complainant. The complaint, thereafter, absented him from duty with effect 4.6.1997. A charge sheet was later issued to him on 17.7.1997 and the reply of the complainant was received regarding the same on 7.10.1997. After a proper, enquiry, services of the complainant was terminated by the Society on 10.11.1997. The. Complainant challenged his termination by filing a statutory appeal, which was accepted by Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ropar on 28.9.1998. However, the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, and Patiala later on set the said order aside on 28.9.1998 in revision of the society. The complainant filed a second revision, which was) dismissed by the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Punjab on 16.8.2000. So much so the complainant filed a writ petition in this Court, which was also dismissed in limine. As such, the termination of the services of the complainant on the ground of huge embezzlements had assumed finality. It has also been submitted that while filing the present criminal complaint and producing preliminary evidence in support of his allegations, the complainant did not disclose all these facts. 6. The complaint Annexure P-1 was filed by the complainant on 25.7.1997. By that time, the complainant had only been served with a charge sheet. He was, thus, not expected to divulge out any detail regarding the termination of his services, filing of the appeal as well as revision, besides the writ petition, as all these events occurred after he had filed the criminal complaint. However, the complainant examined himself as CW-2 on 21.5.2003, when he was asked to step into the witness box in support of the allegations leveled by him in the complaint. This statement is available on the record of the present petition as Annexure P-4. By this time, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, and Punjab had already decided the proceedings regarding termination of services of the complaint. This statement is available on the record of the present petition as Annexure P-4. By this time, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, and Punjab had already decided the proceedings regarding termination of services of the complaint. A perusal of the statement of the complainant as CW -2 would show that there is no reference whatsoever about the enquiry, in pursuance of which his services were terminated, about the statutory appeal, the first revision, as well as the second revision. It is apparent that the complainant tried to conceal the material facts from the Court with the sole purpose of wreaking vengeance against the accused who was the Secretary of the Society at the relevant time, when the services of the complainant were terminated. 7. After the present complaint was filed, the same was forwarded to the police under Section 156 Cr.P.C for investigation and with a further direction that final report be submitted after the conclusion of the same. This complaint was thoroughly investigated by the police, wherein it was established that the complainant himself was guilty of the various charges of embezzlement. Further that it was not established that his signatures were “forged on the charge report. Finally, it was held that no truth could be found in the allegations/complaint of complainant Piara Singh and as such the complaint was liable to be filed. The petitioners have attached a final report prepared by SHO Police Station, Sohana on 11.9.2000, as Annexure P-6. The concluding portion of the same is reproduced here below: As per my enquiry duly made and as per the records of the Cooperative Societies and the statement of the witnesses, it is established that Piara Singh Salesman was found guilty in the enquiry proceedings and right from the very beginning till the end, all the decisions rendered by various authorities have been rendered against Piara Singh Salesman thereby holding him guilty of the various charges of embezzlement etc. and further establishing that Piara Singh had been responsible for the embezzlement of important items in the stocks. and further establishing that Piara Singh had been responsible for the embezzlement of important items in the stocks. As regards the contention of Piara Singh regarding forgery of his signatures on the charge report are concerned, that fact is not established because this fact has been found against Piara Singh in the statement of Beni Ram Inspector, Cooperative Societies, wherein he has stated that Piara Singh had handed over the charge of important items in his presence and had signed the charge report in front of him. Thus in my enquiry, the allegation against Chhotu Singh for forging the signatures of Piara Singh do not get proved. Moreover, if Piara Singh had got any grievance about the signatures on the charge report being forged then the signatures of Piara Singh could be referred to. Forensic Laboratory, Phillaur, from where alone authenticity of this fact can come to the forefront. However, as per my findings there is no truth whatsoever in the complaint of Piara Singh, Salesman and as such the complaint of Piara Singh is liable to be filed. The copies of the statements during the enquiry are enclosed herewith.” 8. In view of the above, it is held that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant for extraneous reasons and the same is patently an abuse of the process of the Court. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is accepted and the complaint Annexure Y-2 is quashed and the summoning order Annexure P-l and all the proceedings taken thereunder are set aside.