LAWS(DLH)-1994-8-48

LACHMAN DASS NARANG Vs. VED PRAKASH

Decided On August 05, 1994
LACHMAN DASS NARANG Appellant
V/S
VED PRAKASH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have, in this petition filed underSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayed for quashing the complaint(Annexure D) filed by the respondent under Sections 323/506/448/34 of the IndianPenal Code which is stated to be pending in the Court of Shri O.P. Soni, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi as also the order of summoning the petitioners passedon 5.6.1992.

(2.) Respondent, Ved Prakash, is a neighbour of the petitioners. On 25.12.1987some quarrel took place which resulted in police taking proceedings underSections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the parties.Petitioners as well as respondent were arrested. After the proceedings concludedgood sense appears to have prevailed upon the parties. On 3.6.1988 at theintervention of some respectable persons of the locality, the matter was patched upand thus no dispute remained to be resolved with respect to the incident which hadhappened on 25.12.1987. As a result of the compromise terms of which werereduced into writing, the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 2.9.1988 ordered thedropping of proceedings and cancelling the bond.

(3.) After the proceedings had come to an end as a result of the compromise,it appears that on 15.12.1988, respondent filed a complaint against the petitionersfor an offence under Sections 323/506/448/34 alleging that on 25.12.1987 while hewas attending the procession on the birth centenary of Guru Govind Singhji, the petitioners threatened him with dire consequences and started beating him bygiving blows. After the incident, it is alleged that he and the petitioners werearrested and a Kalandara under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared by the police. Since petitioners had committed the offence,therefore, he prayed that they be punished in accordance with law. In support ofthe complaint, the respondent examined some witnesses and on 5.6.1992 theimpugned order was passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning thepetitioners: It is this order and the complaint which are sought to be quashed inthese proceedings.