Anil Mehra vs Ajmer Singh

J. S. Sekhon, J.

Ajmer Singh, respondentcomplainant had purchased Booth No. 5, Sector 28, Chandigarh, from one Chand Mal on 1171990 as is apparent from the sale deed Annexure P. 1. Admittedly, Anil Mehra petitioner was a tenant of that booth under Chand Mal and continued to be so after the abovereferred sale of this property. According, to Ajmer Singh complainant, Anil Mehra petitioner along one Sunil Mehra and two sikh gentlemen came to his house located in village Boparai, Police Station, Siri Hargobindpur on 99 1990 at about 10 a.m. in a Maruti Van bearing Registration No. CHK 7660 and enquired from the complainant''s father about his whereabouts. The complainant also arrived there. Anil Mehra petitioner then asked Ajmer Singh that he should sell the booth in question to him. On the refusal of Ajmer Singh that he is not interested in selling the booth, but wants to get it vacated for running his business, Anil Mehra got enraged and asserted that they are in possession for the last 1516 years and would not pay the rent. This resulted in exchange of hot words between the parties. Anil Mehra then threatened to kill aforesaid Ajmer Singh besides threatening that he will lodge a complaint against the owner under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Act in connivance with police of Chandigarh. Anil Mehra also stated that he had connections with the militants and that he would get Ajmer Singh annihilated. Ajmer Singh then directed the accused to behave properly. The accused then left towards the van threatening to kill Ajmer Singh but the hue and cry raised by the complainant and his father, Kulwant Singh, Charan Singh along with 8 or 10 persons were attracted to the spot but the accused then went away in the van. The complainant then went to Police Station, Siri Hargobindpur for lodging the complaint but the local police refused to do so. He then approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Incharge of P.S. Siri Hargobindpur but when no action was taken, the present complaint was lodged against the accused for offence under sections 506. 504, 452 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code.

The trial Court vide its order dated 27111990 after recording preliminary evidence, summoned the accused to face trial for offences under secs. 506 and 504, Indian Penal Code only. Initially, Anil Mehra and Sunil Mehra accusedpetitioners filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint and all the subsequent proceedings resulting therefrom. Later, the name of Sunil Mehra petitioner was dropped as no person of that description was alleged to be in existence and Vakalatnama was not signed by any such person but due to inadvertence the petition was filed also on his behalf as his name figured in the complaint and the order of the Magistrate summoning the accusedpetitioners.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record.

There is no dispute with the legal proposition that ordinarily criminal proceedings can be quashed under section 482 of the Code only if no case is made out even if the entire allegations of the complainant are taken to be true as the High Court cannot substitute itself for the trial, Court and go into the truthfulness or falsehood of the evidence led or yet to he led before the trial Court, yet all the same the High Court under section 482 of the Code can quash criminal proceeding if on the face of it the version is inherently improbable. In the case in hand, the property in dispute is located at Chandigarh and the accused petitioner is a tenant thereof. This properly was purchased by Ajmer Singh complainant on 1171990 from its original owner Chand Mal through saledeed (copy Annexure P. 1). It is not the case of the complainant that the accused at that time had also tried to persuade Chand Mal to sell the property to him being the tenant of the property. The perusal of Annexure P. 2, copy of the plaint of the suit for permanent injunction dated 781990 reveals that the accusedtenant had filed a suit for permanent injunction against Ajmer Singh complainant for restraining him to interfere in his tenancy except in due course of law. The civil Court had granted ad interim injunction on 881990 restraining Ajmer Singh the present complainant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the property. Under these circumstances the filing of the present complaint pertaining to the allegations of 991990 i.e. a month after the granting of the stay order by the Civil Court would itself show that the possibility cannot be ruled out that the present criminal proceedings were instituted as a counterablast to the suit filed by the tenant. It appears that Ajmer Singh complainant has adopted the institution of criminal proceedings in order to put pressure on the tenant to get the premises in dispute vacated. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that District Gurdaspur is one of the most disturbed areas. Thus, it looks rather improbable that a shopkeeper like Anil Mehra would take courage of going to village Boparai in District Gurdaspur what to say of threatening Ajmer Singh in his native village because that will amount to challenging the lion in his own den.

The matter does not rest here as even if for the sake of argument the allegations of the complainant are taken to be true, no offence punishable under sections 506, 504, Indian Penal Code, would be made out as mere boastful threats rendered by the tenant would not fall under the mischief of those provisions. It is not averred in the complaint that Anil Mehra petitioner had asked his two sikh companions to fetch arms lying in the van although this fact figures in the order of the trial Court summoning the accusedpetitioner which in turn implies that during preliminary evidence the complainant may have tried to improve upon his version.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no escape but to conclude that institution of these criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of the Court as Ajmer Singh complainant had tried to enforce his civil right through criminal action.

Consequently, the complaint as well as the order of the trial Court summoning the accusedpetitioner are hereby quashed by accepting this petition.