JINANDER MANN Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sister of the petitioner, namely, Jayanti was married to Sameer Lathar, respondent No. 2 herein. Respondent No. 3 is the father of the respondent No. 2. However, this marriage went into turmoil. The petitioner s sister lodged FIR under Section 498-A/406 IPC with Police Station Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, against the respondent No. 2, his mother and others and the same is pending trial before the Mahila Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. In the dowry various articles, which were given to the respondent No. 2 included one Opel Astra car bearing registration No. HR-26-F-3817 (hereinafter referred to as the said car ). The dispute in the present petition revolves around this car. These dowry articles and the said car were recovered from the possession of the respondent No. 2 and were released on Superdari. The petitioner alleges that on 1.11.2000 he along with his colleagues and friends visited Hotel Broadway, Asaf Ali Road. He had gone there in the said car, which was parked in a parking area opposite Hotel Broadway. However, when the petitioner came out, he found that the said car had been lifted/stolen. He rang up the PCR at telephone No. 100. He also lodged complaint of theft on the basis of which FIR No. 547/2000 under Section 379 IPC was registered with the Police Station Darya Ganj. According to the petitioner, this vehicle was recovered by the police from the possession of respondents No. 2 and 3. The vehicle was again taken on Superdari on 20.11.2000 from the Court of Sh. R.K. Sharma, MM. In the said FIR, respondents No. 2 and 3 also moved anticipatory bail application, which was granted and in this application they had mentioned that the vehicle was recovered from their possession. The police, however, ultimately filed an untraced report. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer for necessary action against the respondents.

(2.) On the other hand, respondents No. 2 and 3 alleged that the complaint/FIR was lodged by the petitioner on false averments in which they were roped in malafidely. They accordingly moved complaint under Section 182 IPC. Vide order dated 21.1.2003 summoning orders have been passed in this complaint against the petitioner. At the same time in the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C., cognizance is taken against the respondent No. 1 by the same order dated 21.1.2003.

(3.) Challenging the summoning order in the complaint under Section 182 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The twin submissions made in support of this petition, on the basis of which the petitioner seeks quashing of the summoning order, are: