R.M.NAIR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUASHING of summoning order of 5th March, 2005 in Criminal Complaint Case No.33/02 Avtar Singh Tyagi v. Dr.R.M.Nair and Anr. for the offences under Section 420/468/471/506/307/120 B IPC is sought on the following grounds:

(2.) AT the hearing, it was vehemently contended by learned counsel for petitioners that second respondent herein had in the first instance filed writ petition seeking direction for registration of FIR against petitioners for the offences of cheating, forgery etc. with the allegations that petitioners had got fake arrest warrants issued against second respondent from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, Madhya Pradesh and in pursuance to the directions issued in the aforesaid writ petition, an FIR was registered for the aforesaid offences and after proper investigation, nothing was found against petitioners and second respondent herein had withdrawn the aforesaid writ petition and thereafter had lodged instant complaint for the aforesaid offences in which petitioners have been summoned vide impugned order of 5th March, 2005. Alleging double jeopardy, quashing of impugned order is sought by petitioners counsel while contending that the pre summoning evidence of CW 1 to CW 4 is a fabricated version put forth by second respondent.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondent complainant, it was strenuously contended that FIR case was consigned as untraced because the original warrants of arrest of second respondent were not traceable and so second respondent had withdrawn the writ petition and had filed the complaint in question as photocopy of the warrants of arrest was later on found. Learned counsel for second respondent had contended that the offence committed by petitioners is heinous and is based on the circumstantial evidence and the offence of criminal conspiracy qua petitioners can be reasonably inferred from the circumstances of this case as petitioners were inimical to second respondent who had reported the matter of electricity theft committed by petitioners and they were fined Rs. 5 lac. It was pointed out by respondent complainant's counsel that petitioners were instrumental in terminating the service of second respondent regarding which an industrial dispute was raised and second respondent was granted compensation of Rs.60,000/ in the year 2007 on account of illegal termination of his service. It was asserted by learned counsel for second respondent that petitioners are highly influential persons and they have managed to get the FIR case untraced and that petitioners are also involved in other criminal cases. According to learned counsel for second respondent, the ingredients of the offences alleged are very much present providing sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint case in question. While relying upon the decision in S. Bains, Director, Small Saving cum Dy. Secy. Finance v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), (1980) 4 SCC 631, it was contended by learned counsel for second respondent that the version put forth by second respondent is quite plausible and the offences alleged are clearly made out and so the complaint in question deserves to be taken to its logical end. Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of second respondent that this petition is not maintainable as petitioners have an effective opportunity to get their version tested by putting it to second respondent in cross examination at the stage of recording of pre charge evidence and it is required to be so done because on disputed facts quashing of impugned order is sought.