Chotu Ram vs Vinay Kumar

Sanjay Parihar, J

The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the complaint pending before the Court of Sub Judge (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class), Nowshera (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) and the order, whereby process has been issued against him for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complaint is presently under consideration before the trial Court and that the complainant has already examined himself as well as other witnesses in support of his case. It is contended that the petitioner has adequate opportunity to raise all permissible defences before the trial Court by way of cross-examination and by confronting the complainant and his witnesses with relevant material, if any. According to the respondent, interference at this stage is neither warranted nor justified.

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the complainant, being a practicing Advocate, has misused the process of law and that several FIRs stand registered against him. It is further submitted that the petitioner has lodged a complaint against the respondent in relation to execution of a fictitious sale deed, which is stated to be under investigation by the CBI. Allegations of threats to the petitioner’s life and fraudulent withdrawal of compensation from the Defence Estates Officer, Rajouri, by the respondent’s family have also been raised. On these grounds, it is contended that the complaint in question is malicious and motivated by personal vendetta.

Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.”, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention and are liable to be quashed. It has been pointed out that although the respondent initially sought investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 452, 504 and 506 IPC, the trial Court conducted an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and, upon examining the complainant and two witnesses, found sufficient grounds to proceed only for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and issued process accordingly.

Have heard the counsels and seen record. The allegations in the complaint reveal that the complainant was cited as a prosecution witness in a previous case against the petitioner and that on 28.04.2022, the petitioner came to the Court premises and allegedly abused and criminally intimidated the complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioner accused the complainant of being a fake Advocate involved in preparing forged documents to grab properties of migrated persons and extended threats despite intervention by officials. An allegation has also been made that the petitioner, armed with a dagger concealed in his bag, attempted to enter the complainant’s office.

The trial Court, upon examining the complainant and supporting witnesses including Advocates Lokesh Kumar and Yog Raj, found prima facie material disclosing commission of offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The procedure adopted by the trial Court in conducting an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter taking cognizance cannot be said to be procedurally defective.

It is not in dispute that the complainant is a prosecution witness in a pending case against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the contention that the present petition has been filed to deter the complainant from appearing as a witness cannot be lightly brushed aside. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and only in cases, where intervention is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice.

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the case falls within any of the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) so as to warrant quashment of the proceedings. The disputed questions of fact and the defences available to the petitioner are matters to be adjudicated during trial upon appreciation of evidence.

In view of the foregoing discussion, no case for interference is made out. The petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith connected application. Interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated.

However, considering that the complaint is pending since the year 2022, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournments.