S.L.Daga, Managing Director vs Birbal

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu J.

S. L. Daga, Managing Director and A.K. Joshi Director, M/s Dag & Fibres Private Limited filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of a complaint under Sections 452, 343, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC dated 23111990 filed by respondent Birbal in the Court of Judicial Magistrate lst Class, Ludhiana and proceedings taken in consequence thereof including the summoning order dated 15121990 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana Annexure P/2.

The respondent alleged in the complaint Annexure P/1 that he had filed a criminal complaint under Section 420 IPC against the petitioners which was pending in the Court of Shri S.S. Tiwana, Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The petitioners were pressurising him to withdraw the complaint but he refused. On 21111990 he was present in his office when at about 3.00 P.M. the petitioners entered his office with an intention to cause hurt to him and S.L. Daga raised a Lalkara that he should be taught a lesson. A K. Joshi petitioner gave him Soti blows on his face and legs. The occurrence was witnessed by Surinder Kumar and Bharat Bhushan. The complainant was also,'' threatened with dire consequences. Preliminary evidence was recorded in this complaint and the petitioners were summoned to face charge for the offences vide order Annexure P/2.

The petitioners alleged that they had already filed two suits for the recovery of amounts from the respondent which were pending in Bombay City Civil Court and in the High Court of Bombay. This complaint was a counterblast to those suits and was meant to harass and humiliate the petitioners who were residing in Bombay. The only object in filing the complaint was to compel the petitioners is to visit Ludhiana which people living outside Punjab did not like to visit due to disturbed conditions.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners had been supplying synthetic waste to the respondent in normal course of their business when some dispute arose, which led to the filing of two suits against the respondent. One suit was filed against the respondent on 2661989 and the second suit on 691989. The respondent had been pressurising the petitioners to withdraw those suits. As they did not agree to the withdrawal the respondent first filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 420 IPC and then filed this second complaint Annexure P/1. This complaint was simply an abuse of process of Court and" the interest of justice required that it should be quashed.

It was, however, maintained on behalf or the respondent that the inherent powers of Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and with great circumspection and at the initial stage no inquiry is to be made in the truthfuless or falsity of the allegations. Reliance was placed on the case of J.P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar Jain, 1986(2) RCR(Crl.) 75 (SC) : AIR 1986 Supreme Court 833 end it was urged that this Court had only to ascertain with reference to the allegations made in the complaint Annexure P/1 whether on the basis of these allegations a cognizable offence had been alleged to have been committed. The allegations made in the complaint are to be taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety. I find that there is no dispute so far as legal proposition set up by the learned counsel is concerned but then each case is to be decided on its own facts and the Court is to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. A Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose. In the instant case the dispute between the parties was regarding the supply of synthetic waste which the petitioners were to give to the respondent. Since the petitioners instituted two suits for recovery of amount against the respondent, he too filed a civil suit against the petitioners and then resorted to criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC Still not feeling satisfied he filed the complaint Annexure P/1 knowing that the petitioners were living in Bombay and it will cause them sufficient harassment to face criminal prosecution in Ludhiana. Petitioner No. 1 is alleged to be of the age of 58 years, His educational qualification is B. Com. M. B. A, London. He is an industrialist and president of three trusts. Petitioner No. 2 is aged 43 years and is also B Com. M.B.A. London. He is president of Lions Club, Chembur Bombay. They cannot be expected to raise Lalkaras and give Soti blows to the respondent after entering his office. The allegations to that effect made in that petition have not been controverted by the respondent. The facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicate that present complaint Annexure P/1 is an abuse of the process of the Court and in the interest of justice, this prosecution should not be permitted to continue.

For the reasons recorded above, I allow this petition and quash the complaint Annexure P/1 as well as the proceedings taken in consequence thereof including the order Annexure P/2.