A G KHAN Vs. POLICE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed u/S. 482, Cr. P.C. seeking quashment of the proceedings pending before Sh. B. Lal, Special Executive Megistrate, u/S. 107 read with S. 150, Cr. P.C.

(2.) I have gone through the record of the Special Executive Megistrate and find that it depicts a sorry state of affairs. A complaint dated 27.3.89, was made by Mohan Lal in which he joined five persons as respondents, out of whom two arc the petitioners before me and it was alleged in that complaint that this complaint is being given in continuation of complaint dated 19.1.89, but the record shows that there is no such complaint attached with this file. In para 2 of the complaint, it has been mentioned that at about 11 P.M. two bulls were fighting in the lane and they fell down on the water tap/pipe line of the respondent Mrs. Kishwar Jahan Begum and the water pipes were damaged and that respondents, Shri A.G. Khan and Mrs. Kishwar Jahan Begum (now petitioners) alleged that it was the complainant who had broken the said pipeline and they were stated to have lodged a report with the police. It was then averted that the police of Police Station Krishan Nagar has been harassing and abusing the complainant at the behest of the accused persons and the accused persons are bent upon harming the complainant as they are in collusion with the police. No allegation whatsoever has been made in the whole of the conplaint that the complainant has been threatened directly by any of the respondents or there was possibility of taking any law into their own hands or committing and breach of peace. The mere fact that the police allegedly in collusion with the accused persons was harassing the complainant at the alleged behest of the respondents would not bring this case within the four corners of Ss. 107 & 150 of the Code.

(3.) On 27.3.89, itself the Special Executive Magistrate bad passed the order summoning both the parties for 13.4.89 and thereafter only A.G. Khan and Zameer Khan (respondents 1 & 4 in the complaint) have been appearing and orders have been made for summoning remaining persons including Mrs. Kishwar Jahan Begum but surprisingly enough in the original complaint the name of Mrs. Kishwar Jahan Begum had been struck off with the green ink which is used by the Special Executive Magistrate in recording the first order on 27.3.89, but it is not made clear in any of the orders passed by the learned Special Executive Magistrate that the name of respondent No. 2 Mrs. Kishwar Jahan Begum has to be deleted and no summons or notice was to be issued to her because all subsequent orders do show that summons were being issued to Mrs. Kishwar Jahan Begum as well. It is not clear as to how it became necessary for the learned Executive Magistrate to strike out the name of respondent No. 2 from the array of parties. Be that as it may, the copies of the notice served u/S. Ill of the Code filed alongwith the petition show that different language had been used in original notice appearing on the record and I find that the original notice has over writings. Even the first notice directed to be issued to the parties including the respondents shows cuttings in the original record and copy of the notice filed with the petition shows that those cuttings were not there. It those cuttings are ignored it would mean that cyclostyled proforma was used which shows that it was on the basis of kalendia put in by the SHO that the proceedings are being taken. The original order appearing on the record shows that on the complaint of Mohan Lal the cyclostyled notices were issued to the accused persons. Counsel for the petitioner states that even this original order had been later on changed. It is not necessary to go into this question for deciding the present petition because the proceedings before the Special Executive Magistrate are liable to be quashed in view of the fact that taking the averments made in the complaint as they are, no case (lands made out for initiating any proceedings u/s. 107 & 150 of the Code. No evidence has been recorded by the learned Magistrate before summoning the petitioners and the other respondents.