Paramjeet Singh And Ors @APPELLANT@Hash Idrees Ganai

Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A CrPC, the petitioners inter alia seek quashing of the complaint titled Idrees Ganai vs Paramjeet Singh and others pending before the learned Munsiff, District Mobile Magistrate (T), Poonch and the order dated 25.10.2017 passed therein with regard to taking of cognizance.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the employees of Mahindra Finance Services Ltd; that the respondent had obtained loan from the company of the petitioner from Rajouri branch for purchasing a vehicle in the year 2014 and after availing loan the respondent committed frequent defaults in payment of loan installments which resulted in the foreclosing of loan account of the respondent; that huge amount was pending to be paid to the company of petitioner; that respondent in order to exert undue pressure upon the petitioners, who are employees of Mahindra Finance Services limited has filed a false and frivolous complaint that too at Poonch under Sections 420/504/506 RPC before the learned Munsiff District Mobile Magistrate (T), Poonch, who without applying its mind has summoned the petitioners on 25.10.2017; that the court below was not competent to take cognizance because the court at Poonch was not having territorial jurisdiction to deal with the subject; that the complaint against petitioners is required to be quashed on the ground that the complaint has not been filed before the court of competent jurisdiction inasmuch as if at all the complainant had any cause of action against the petitioners then the same had accrued at Pathankot Punjab. So the court of Poonch have no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also gone through the law on the subject.

It is apt to reproduce the relevant para 13 of the complaint as under:

That on 25-02-2017 the accused Nos. 1 and 5 were contacted telling them that action would be taken against them by the complainant if they did not give statement of my account as the complainant had to proceed for Punjab on 27.02.2017. The complainant told that I will go to Punjab on 27.02.2017 and on my return I want my statement of account. The accused No.1 and 5 said that come back.... The complainant when started from Jammu towards Punjab Batala and when reached at Pathankote Toll Post some unknown persons, who were occupying motor cycle, started chasing the complainant and as soon as the complainant crosses Punjab Amritsar Toll Post, the accused persons got stand their motor cycle in front of the vehicle and stopped the complainant. The complainant started speaking with them and asked them the cause of stopping the vehicle, they told that they have got instructions from Jammu Head Office for seizing the vehicle of the complainant and the complainant refused to give them the vehicle but they started snatching the vehicle and asked the complainant to accompany them without any hitch. They call some other people also. To save himself the complainant had to go to .....Otherwise he would have been eliminated by them and the complainant requested them to come to the office Financiers but these unknown persons seized the vehicle and they made conversation with the accused No.1 and told that in case the complainant pays Rs.50,000/- at once, they will allow the vehicle to go and as such the complainant paid them Rs.50,000/- and talked to the accused No.1 and 5 and they told that Rs.50,000/-have been received now but the vehicle shall not be released to the complainant and whole of the case of vehicle-----

From perusal of this relevant para ,it is evident that alleged offence if any has taken place at Pathankote, so JMIC, Poonch has no territorial jurisdiction in terms of section 177 CrPC, which reads as under:-Section 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

Section 177 of the CrPC unambiguously states that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

"Offence", by virtue of the definition ascribed to the word by Section 4(k) of the CrPC means any act or omission made punishable by any law. Keeping in perspective the presence of the word "ordinarily" in Section 177 of CrPC, we hasten to adumbrate that the exceptions to it are contained in the CrPC itself, that is, in the contents of the succeeding Sections. The CrPC also contains an explication of "complaint" as any allegation to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action in respect of the commission of an offence; not being a police report. Prosecution ensues from a Complaint or police report for the purpose of determining the culpability of a person accused of the commission of a crime; Section 177, CrPC explicitly states that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

In view of above section I am of considered opinion that JMIC Poonch has no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance and issue process in complaint filed by respondent.

Further perusal of contents of complaint, the relevant para of which I have mentioned, it is apparent that facts have been manufactured in order to create an illusion that criminal cause of action has accrued. Admittedly complainant has taken loan from Mahindra and Mahindra for purchase of car Alto and he is in arrears of loan amount; it is also a fact that petitioners are employees of finance company Mahindra and Mahindra and they asked complainant to pay money due to him. So from going through the whole complaint, it is evident that, complaint has been filed with mala fide and has been 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. The allegations made in the 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. Further from the perusal of impugned order of issuance of notice dated 25.10.2017, it would reveal that magistrate has not even bothered to write the offence/s in which he has taken cognizance and issued the process. Even in complaint there is no mention as to whether complainant has ever approached to the police in terms of section 154(1) and (2) of CrPC, prior to filing complaint before magistrate.

In view of above this petition is allowed and complaint pending before court below and order of taking cognizance is quashed.