SHASHI BHANDARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. both the petitioners who are accused, seek the quashing of complaint case No. 187/93 filed under sections 323/504/506/341/34 Indian Penal Code pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate.

(2.) Said complaint case was filed on 3rd November 1993 by Adrash Alreja, respondent No.2 inter alia, alleging that he is the Managing Director and Principal Officer of M/S. EDP Aids Pvt. Ltd., a tenant in respect of second floor of property No. B-32, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi. This property was owned by S.N. Mehra who sold it to Smt. Shashi Bhandari, petitioner No.1 and after purchase the company became tenant under her with affect from 1st June 1989 and had been paying rent to her regularly. I.D. Dubey, tenant, in the ground floor of the said property suddenly vacated it on the night intervening 22nd/23rd October 1993 without the knowledge of any of the neighbours. To the best of knowledge of respondent No.2 the petitioners used illegal means for getting the said portion vacated by him. Immediately after petitioner No.1 pchased the property, the petitioners had been persistently pressing respondent No.2 to vacate the tenanted portion. It is alleged that on 23rd October 1993 door on the ground floor leading to the tenanted portion was got locked four times in between 9.30 AM to 12.30 PM by the petitioners thereby causing interference in the free access of the Directors, staff members and customers etc of the company. At about 2.35 PM on the same day respondent No.2 received a telephone call from one Sh. Sandhu who claimed to have purchased the said property from petitioner No.1 and he threatened him to vacate the tenanted portion else he would face dire consequences. It had been revealed that petitioner No.1 continues to be the owner of the said property and she had engaged said Sh. Sandhu to get the tenanted portion vacated by threats of violence. Respondent No.2 was thus compelled to file a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners and the counsel appearing for petitioners in the suit made a statement before the Sub Judge that petitioner No.1 will not dispossess respondent No.2 from the tenanted portion by unlawful means. In view of this statement respondent No.2 got the suit dismissed as withdrawn.

(3.) It is further alleged that on 1st November, 1993 at about 6 pm when the respondent no. 2/complainant was sitting in the office and having discussion with some of the staff members both the petitioners suddenly came there. Sekhar Bhandari, petitioner no. 2 caught hold of him and started giving blows on his head and face etc. Petitioner No. 1 joined petitioner no. 2 in giving fist blow to him. Both of them used strong abusive language and warned him to vacate the tenanted portion within a week else be ready to face dire consequences. Immediately thereafter a report was lodged with the police but no action taken by them. After recording statements of respondents No. 2 as CW-1, Pramod Mohan Sahai, CW-2, Ravindaran K., CW-3, under section 200 Criminal Procedure Code the petitioners were summoned by the Magistrate by the order dated 7th June, 1994 for the offences under sections 323/504/506/341/34 IPC. Application for recalling the summoning order filed by the petitioner was declined by the order dated 30th January, 1997 by the Magistrate.