OMVEER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUASHING of criminal complaint No.199/07 for the offences under Section 506/323/34 of IPC is sought in this petition on merits. Vide order of 3rd October, 2008 petitioners have been summoned as accused in the aforesaid complaint made by respondent No.2. The facts giving rise to the instant complaint as noticed in the summoning order of 3rd October, 2008 are as under: -

(2.) AT the hearing of this petition, the moot question raised by learned counsel for petitioners was that cognizance of the offences in question cannot be taken without prior sanction either under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and under Section 140 of Delhi Police Act. It was submitted on behalf of petitioners that respondent -complainant and his two associates namely Lalit Kumar and Ram Kumar, who are witnesses in the instant complaint, are in the habit of filing false complaints against police officials and to create pressure upon petitioners to harass Mohd. Aslam, against whom respondent -complainant had lodged FIR No.392/2007 under Section 308 of IPC registered at P.S. Bhajanpura, Delhi. It was pointed out that respondent -complainant has already compromised and co -operated with his tenant Mohd. Aslam to get the aforesaid FIR quashed. Thus, it was submitted on behalf of petitioners that the instant complaint is maliciously instituted with ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance against petitioners. In support of above submissions, reliance was placed upon decisions in State of Bihar v. Kamla Prasad (1998) 5 SCC 690; NAFED v. State & Ors. 2011 (1) AD Delhi 23; Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M.K. Aiyappa & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 705.

(3.) SINCE the moot question raised in this petition needs to be answered, therefore, after having heard learned counsel for petitioners and on perusal of the impugned complaint, summoning order and the decisions cited, I find that trial court has summarily dealt with this aspect by simply observing that it is not the part of official duty to use filthy language/abuses.