SURAJ PRAKASH SOOD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suraj Prakash Sood has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing Criminal Complaint No. 60 of 1986 (Raj Narain Singh v. Suraj Prakash Sood & others), which is pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur, district Varansi. Subsequently an application was moved by the petitioner on 19-11-1990 wherein a prayer has been made to quash the orders passed in the aforesaid. criminal case by which the petitioner was summonnedand warrant was also issued against him.

(2.) Respondent No. 3,Raj Narain Singh, filed a criminal complaint on 20-1-1986 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur, Varanasi, against six accused including the petitioner Suraj Prakash Sood and one Hanuman Prasad Baranwal Praying that the accused be summonned and be tried for the offences under Sections 452 IPC. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the accused No.1 Suraj Prakash Sopd (petitioner) carries on the business of manufacturing and selling dyeing machines in Ludhiana and an agreement had been executed by accused No.1. in favour of the complaint wherein he had agreed that he will pay ten percent commission to the complainant on the sales of the dyeing machines. Under the aforesaid agreement a sum of Rs. 4,46,000/- was due to the complainant from accused No.1 regarding which correspondence between the parties had taken place. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 also carry on the business of dyeing through machines and they had purchased machines from accused No.1 and thus they were associates and helpers of accused No.1. They also owe some money to accused No.1. on 10-5-1985 the accused called a panchayat at the house of Rudra Kumar Rai and later on at the house of Lalta Prasad Yadav and asked the complainant to be present there. The accused had further assured the complainant that either he would be paid the amount due to him or accused Nos. 2 to 5 will become responsible for payment thereof, after making some reduction. The Panchayat continued for two three hours but no settlement could take place and the complainant returned to his house. The case of the complainant further is that at about 11 P.M. the accused came to his house and started talking to him. Suddenly all the accused entered the complainants house with criminal intention and told him that he should give a receipt in writing to the effect that he had received the entire amount due from Suraj Prakash Sood otherwise he would be killed. They further threatened that they would kidnap the only son of the complainant and commit his murder. The complainant raised an alarm on which F.R. Qureshi and some other persons came on the spot and then the accused left the place after giving him threat of his life. The complainant went to the police station to lodge the report but as the accused one rich persons and the local police was acting in league with them, the first information report was not taken down. The complainant made reports to higher authorities and on 15-12-1985 a first information report under Section 506 IPC was taken down.

(3.) Shri S.S. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the dispute between the parties was purely of civil nature regarding alleged demand of money by the complainant. The complainant had initiated proceedings for arbitration and the arbitrator has also given an award in favour of the complainant. The criminal complainant had been filed with ulterior motive in order to put pressure upon the petitioner as the complainant had not been able to obtain money from the petitioner. It is also urged that the allegations in the complaint were absolutely as no such incident had taken place which will be evident from the fact that in the notice issued by the arbitrator or in the award there is no whisper of the alleged incident. Learned counsel further submitted that the complaint was highly belated inasmuch as the incident is alleged to have taken place on 10-5-1985 but the first information report was lodged on 15-12-1985 after nearly seven months and the complaint was filed even later on 20-1-1986. The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report and in the fling of complaint showed that the prosecution case was absolutely false and the proceedings initiated by the complainant were an abuse of the process of the court.