RAMZANI Vs. NIZAMUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are five criminal misc. cases for quashing of criminal complaints and the orders passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the application of the petitioner for recalling of the order of summoning. Before I refer to the facts of the cases, I must express my deep anguish that these are five cases in which the complainant happens to be an advocate who was engaged by the petitioner as his counsel with a view to defend him, but the respondent / complainant choose to prosecute the petitioner maliciously with a view to wreak vengeance and to spite him because he was instrumental in exposing the mis-deeds of the advocate.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a complaint case bearing no. 187/1/1997 titled Nizamuddin Vs. Ramzani and two others Smt. Bhagwati Devi and Mohd. Saleem was filed under Section 384/500/506/34 IPC. The petitioner was summoned as an accused in the said case. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of summoning had filed an application u/S 204 Cr.P.C. for dropping of proceedings against him before the learned Magistrate on 30.09.2000. The said application was rejected by the learned MM.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner had filed a Crl. Rev. P. No. 9/2001 before Sh. R. K. Sharma, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi alleging that he was the client of respondent/advocate since 1986-1996. During this period, the respondent was in the habit of extorting money from the petitioner in the name of Presiding Officer/Public Prosecutor. Originally the present petitioner obliged the respondent /complainant by conceding to his illegal demands but at some point of time he resisted these illegal demands. One of the averments made in the petition is that the respondent being an advocate had misused his position by filing as many as 31 complaints against various persons out of which in 21 cases, he had named the present petitioner, as an accused. A detailed table of these cases have been given by the petitioner along with the petitions and the same is reproduced herein as under: ANNEXURE-B <FRM>JUDGEMENT_300_AD(CR)1_2012_1.html</FRM>