MAHENDRA KUMAR MODI Vs. RAM KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. P S. Chauhan, J. By means of this application u/s 482, Cr. P. C. the applicants have prayed for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 665 of 1980, Ram Kumar Sharma v. Kaghubar Dayal and others, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

(2.) THE complainant, Ram Kumar Sharma, lodged a complaint purporting to be under Sections 419/420/468/469/470/471/464, I. P. C. against the applicants (Accused No. 14 to 16) and others alleging that Mazdoor Union Modi Lalten Works, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Union') is a registered trade union vide Registration No. 1068 dated 9. 8. 52, and the complainant is its President. It was alleged that Mahendra Kumar Modi, the Managing Director, got the hunger strike resorted to by the workers withdrawn on assurance regarding acceptance their demands. On non-fulfilment of the demands, a notice of hunger strike was again given on 14. 9. 79, which was suspended till 1. 10. 79 on the intervention of the Labour Department. Notice for hunger strike was again given on 2. 10. 79. THE allegation made is that the accused No. 1, Raghubar Dayal, and accused No. 3, Mohan Prasad, illegally claiming themselves to be the President and Secretary respectively of the Union sent a fake list of members and office bearers to the Registrar, Trade Union, Kanpur. THE allegation further was that they with a view to damage the interest of the workers colluded with the applicants in the present petition and entered into an illegal agreement with them on 10. 9. 79, which was void under Rules 5 and 40 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1947. A F. I. R. was lodged on 29. 9. 1979 at P. S. Modi Nagar, but the police did not take and action, hence the complaint.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants submits that the complaint is frivolous and does not make out any offence of cheating and forgery. Cheating is defined in Section 415, I. P. C. , which requires that a person deceiving any other person, fraudulently or dishonestly, induce the person to deliver any property to any person. The complaint does not set out any such case. Deception, as per allegations in the complaint, is practiced on the Labour Department and the Labour Department has not done anything on the basis of any alleged deception, which being an essential ingredient of Section 415, I. P. C. is nonest in the present case. Nothing has been disclosed in the complaint as to what was done or omitted to be done by the Labour Department as a result of the alleged agree ment and what harm or damage to the Labour Department in body, mind and reputation or property was caused.