B.S. NEGI Vs. STATE AND BARSATI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks quashing of summoning order dated 25.4.2004 and Complaint Case No. 266/2004 titled Shri Barsati Lal v. Shri Raju and Ors. pending before the concerned court of M.M. Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

(2.) BRIEF facts germane to the controversy and as set out by the petitioner are as under:

(3.) MR . Deepak Dhingra Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent/complainant deliberately and mischievously did not disclose the exact status and position being occupied by various respondents in M/s Dharam Pal Satyapal Limited under which the respondent/complainant was working in his capacity as a labourer. Counsel further submitted that the accused No. 1 impleaded by the complainant called by the name of "Shri Raju" is in fact the Managing Director of the said company, M/s Dharampal Satyapal Limited and the accused No. 2 "Shri Negi" was working as a "Unit Head" of the company and after his retirement he is acting as an independent consultant. Similarly, Shri Jailendra accused No. 3 was working in the capacity of "Production Head (machines)" while accused No. 4 Shri R.K. Chaudhary was employed as "Personnel Head" with the said company. Shri Tyagi who has been impleaded as accused No. 5 in the said complainant in fact was a practicing advocate and in that capacity was appointed as a Labour Consultant (retainer) of the said company, while Shri Chander Mohan accused No. 6 was employed as a "Production Head (manual)". The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner was that the complainant/respondent No. 2 had filed the said complaint out of grudge and vindictiveness after having lost his case in the labour court. Counsel further submitted that not only that he failed to disclose the designations of the accused persons in the complaint but also suppressed from the court that he himself had resigned from his job and on his resignation he was paid an amount of Rs. 79,024/ - vide cheque bearing No. 100824 dated 3.4.2004 drawn on State Bank of India besides payment of Rs. 4, 689/ - in cash towards his bonus in full and final settlement of all his dues. Counsel further submitted that the said cheque given by the company was duly presented by the respondent No. 2 in his account and the amount was duly debited to his account immediately thereafter. That after a gap of about one year the respondent No. 2 through legal notice dated 1.4.2003 called upon the said company to explain the reasons for withholding his payment towards GPF and the reasons for stopping ESI Facilities in the said legal notice. The complainant also mentioned that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by the company in the presence of Shri Negi, Shri Jailendra, Shri R.K. Chaudhary, Shri Tyagi and Shri Tek Chand Mohan on the false assurance that he would be given employment at some other place by the company. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner was that all the important functionaries of the company were named in the said legal notice and some names were repeated by him in his complaint dated 20.4.2004 and also in the complaint under challenge before this court. Counsel for the petitioner also drew attention of this court to the allegations leveled by the complainant against all the accused persons which, as per the Counsel for the petitioner would clearly expose his utter falsehood and malafides in his said complaint dated 11.5.2004. In the complaint, respondent No. 2 has alleged that on 21.3.2004 at about 10.00 p.m. all the accused persons together came to his house and the accused Raju (Managing Director) of the company had pointed out a revolver at the complainant by brandishing the same. The accused, Negi "Unit Head" and Jailendra "Production Head (Machines)" had caught hold of the complainant and the accused R.K. Chaudhary "Personnel Head" and Shri Tyagi "Labour Consultant (retainer)" caught hold of the wife of the complainant and accused Chander Mohan "Production Head (manual)" and Satyapal had given beating to the complainant with fist and kick blows repeatedly and the same very persons again on 28.3.2004 at 11:00 p.m. and yet again on 19.4.2004 at 10.00 p.m. visited the house of the respondent/complainant with the threats to kill him and his family members and also to set his Jhuggi on fire and also to get his children killed or kidnapped if the complainant dared to lodge any complaint to the police against them. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that such stereotyped allegations against the important functionaries of the company including its Managing Director would clearly show that the allegations leveled by the complainant are not only absurd but rather highly improbable and unrealistic. Counsel further submitted that no such incident was reported by the complainant to the police except before the alleged complaint dated 20.4.2004 was sent to the Police Commissioner, Delhi. It is also submitted that there is no medical record that the complainant was given any alleged merciless beatings by the accused persons. Counsel further submitted that same allegations have been leveled by the complainant in his complaint filed before the concerned Magistrate and also in the pre -summoning evidence adduced by the complainant, his wife and one labourer Sh. Pradeep Dass who is a resident of nearby Jhuggi of the complainant. Another surprising factor as per the Counsel for the petitioner is that even the said labourer Pradeep Dass also named the said functionaries of the company in his evidence as if he had personally known them. Based on the above submissions Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ld. M.M. has committed a grave illegality in directing summoning of the accused based on such absurd and improbable allegations. The ld. M.M. has directed summoning of the petitioner and other accused persons without applying his judicial mind and in a very casual and careless manner. Counsel thus submitted that the criminal proceedings were initiated by the complainant with ulterior motives out of grudge and personal vendetta. By roping in all the important functionaries of the company, the Ld. M.M. instead of dismissing such an absurd complaint directed summoning of all the accused persons, which on the part of the concerned Magistrate is a clear case of non -application of mind on his part. In support of his arguments ld. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments: