A.K. Jain vs U.T. Chandigarh and Others <BR> Dr. Pran Sachdeva Vs U.T. Chandigarh and Another

Sabina, J.—Vide this judgment, above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as petitioners have sought quashing of criminal complaint No. 21 dated 2.5.2002 (Annexure P-8) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 18.1.2011 (Annexure P-13). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, in fact, ejectment petition had been filed against complainant-respondent No. 2 and Ravinder Sen with regard to ground floor of house No. 147 Sector 27-A, Chandigarh. The said petition was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 29.11.2000 (Annexure P-6). During the pendency of the appeal, Ravinder Sen died. Complainant handed over the keys of the demised premises on 12.11.2001 to Pran Sachdeva. Rent was also paid up to date. Thereafter, the complaint in question had been filed on 2.5.2002 levelling allegations that the letters in question had been forged by the petitioners. The said letters were duly exhibited in the ejectment proceedings. Learned Rent Controller had not held that the letters in question were forged documents. Hence, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners were liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions and has submitted that the complainant was employed with M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. The said company had taken the house in question on rent in July 1984 for the residence of the complainant as well as his family members. Lease agreement in this regard was duly executed. Thereafter, complainant left the company w.e.f. 31.7.1993. Hence, the letters in question which had been alleged to have been written by the complainant after he had left the company had been forged by the petitioners.

In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , the Apex Court has held as under:-

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No. 2, 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 u/s 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 no 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 Magistrate as contemplated u/s 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 proceeding 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 specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings 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.

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

Case of the complainant, as per the complaint, in brief, was that complainant was employed as brewer with M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries Limited and was on deputation with M/s. Mount Shivalik Breweries Limited. The said company had taken the house in question on rent for residential purposes of the complainant in July 1984. Lease agreement was duly executed in this regard. Complainant worked with M/s. Mount Shivalik Breweries Limited till 31.7.1993. Brother of the complainant Ravinder Sen continued staying in the house in question. The tenancy qua the house in question was created in favour of Ravinder Sen, brother of the complainant w.e.f. 1.9.1993. Petitioner Pran Sachdeva had filed ejectment proceedings against the complainant and his brother by taking various grounds. The eviction petition was duly contested by the complainant as well as his brother. During the said proceedings, petitioner Pran Sachdeva placed on record three letters alleged to have been written by the complainant. The said letters were forged and fabricated documents as by that time, complainant has already left the company and had no reason to write those letters.

A perusal of the judgment dated 29.11.2000 passed by the Rent Controller (Annexure P-6) reveals that ejection petition was allowed and respondents were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises within two months from filing of the petition. In the said proceedings, a plea was taken by the complainant that he had already left the premises in question on 31.8.1993 and was no longer tenant under the petitioners in the ejectment petition. The said objection raised by the complainant was rejected while deciding issue No. 2. The letters in question were exhibited in the ejectment proceedings as Annexures C-4 to C-6. However, the Rent Controller has not opined that the said letters were forged and fabricated document.

A perusal of Annexure P-7 reveals that on 12.11.2001, complainant had handed over the vacant possession of the premises to petitioner Pran Sachdeva during the pendency of the appeal. It was further stated by the complainant in his said statement that rent up to date had also been deposited and consequently, appeal might be dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the complaint in question has been filed levelling allegations that the letters in question were forged and fabricated documents. The eviction order passed by the Rent Controller gained finality as complainant had handed over the possession to petitioner Pran Sachdeva and had withdrawn the appeal. The trial Court while passing the impugned summoning order dated 18.1.2011 (Annexure P-13) has erred in appreciating the fact that there was no finding of the Rent Controller that the letters in question were forged. Rather complainant himself had withdrawn the appeal filed by him challenging the order of ejectment. Learned Rent Controller has also rejected the argument raised by the complainant that he had been unnecessarily impleaded as respondent in the ejectment proceedings. It appears that although the complainant withdrew the appeal challenging the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller but thereafter, has involved the petitioners in the criminal litigation to harass them.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. Criminal complaint No. 21 dated 2.5.2002 (Annexure P-8) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 18.1.2011 (Annexure P-13) are quashed.