GOPAL ARORA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) the petitioner Gopal Arora seeks quashing of complaint dated 30.5.1990 against him filed by respondent No. 2, P.D. Mathur pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) and the order dated 30.10.1992 whereby he (besides two others) has been summoned for offences under Sections 427/342/34 IPC. In the complaint five persons Kishan Kumar (A-1 ), his son Pankaj, (A-2), Badri Kumar, his brother (A- 3), Gopal Arora (A-4) and Naresh Kumar Jindal (A-5) are arrayed as accused. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint against A-2 and A-5 on the ground that no offence is made out against them and also for offence under Section S.436 IPC.

(2.) The complainant is a tenant of Kishan Kumar (A1) in premises No. R-18, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi where he is running a factory since 1970. It was alleged that he had made some additions and alterations in the premises at his cost as authorised by and without any objection of the landlord. Later on, on the complaint of A-1 made on 30.12.1981 the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MOD) on 11.1.1982 demolished. major portion of the structure. The landlord also disconnected his light and power supplies for which criminal complaint is pending and the landlord was theatening to evict him from premises. Some other litigation both civil and criminal are also pending. A fire took place in his factory on the night of 29/30-10-1989 and at about 12.00, in the night being informed about it, he reached the spot and found his factory on fire. He wanted to salvage his goods/articles from the premises but accused Gopal Arora and Naresh Kumar Jindai prevented him to open the lock and said "Abhi to siraph sahanjalla hai tum ko bhee iskey saath (?.) hoga" and pushed him aside. A- 5 had also abused him. Some persons present there demolished part of the premises. He had seen A-1 and A-3 coming out of the house of A-4 at that time. Fire was controlled by the fire brigade. Police reached the sopt but they did not record his report and on the following day when he went to the police station for lodging the report. Then he had sent a written complaint to the SHO and other higher police officers on 10.11.1989 but still no action was taken and he filed the present complaint on 30.5.1990. Apparently the allegations made are that the accused persons conspired in putting his factory on fire and thereby caused loss to him and he was prevented from removing his goods.

(3.) Learned Magistrate in inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) recorded statements of complainant Public Witness . 1, Public Witness . 2, Hari Kishan, Fire Station Officer, Public Witness . 3 Dharam Chand Jain, a co-tenant in the premises, Public Witness .4, H.L. Chaudhary and Public Witness . 5 Dharam Pal Chaudhary, two residents of the locality and on the material came to the conclusion that no offence was made out under Section 436 Indian Penal Code but took cognizance against accused Kishan Kumar (A-1 ), Badri Kumar (A- 3) and Gopal Arora (A-4) only under Section 427/342/34 Indian Penal Code and summoned them. Complaint against Pankaj.(A-2) and Naresh Kumar (A-5) was dismissed. The petitioner Gopal Arora only has filed this petition.