MADAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under section 482 of the CrPC, and arises in the following circumstances :-

(2.) LAL Mani Dubey, opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint against the applicants Madan LAL and Murari LAL who are real brothers. This complaint was filed in the court of Munsif-Magistrate III of district Sultanpur on 26-3-1981 under section 406 of the IPC. The allegations were that applicants were doing business under the name and style of M/s. Asha Ram Khushi Ram Iron Steel Rolling Mill, Amolh, in district Patiala (Punjab) and in connection with their business used to visit Dubey Ka Purwa, the village of the complainant-opposite-party No. 2. In Dubey Ka Purwa resided one Sri S. N. Dwivedi with whom the applicants had business dealings. The complainant-opposite-party No. 2 was also known to the applicants in that connection. It was on 25-3-1981 that the opposite- party No. 2 claimed to be coming to Lucknow with his companions Ram Pal and Ram Kishore. He was waiting for conveyance on the crossing of Beraunsa but did not get any and hence started in an Efcka towards Sultanpur. While he had gone ahead of Bazar Gosain Ganj and was in village Itkauli and it was about 5 p. m. he saw a car coming from east. When the car slowed down on account of some crowd on the road the complainant opposite-party No. 2 saw the applicants sitting in the car and recognising them asked them to stop the car and give him a lift to Lucknow towards which side they were going. The applicants agreed to accommodate the opposite- party No. 2 and his other two companions and while the opposite party No. 2 had handed over his attache case to Madan LAL, applicant No. 1 and was trying to take out his other luggage from the Ekka, the applicants immediately asked the driver to go ahead and the car started. Thus the applicants took away the attache case and did not stop on his asking. According to the complaint the attache case contained Rs. 1100.00 cash besides clothes. He informed the Police Station Kotwail, Sultanpur, on 25-3-1981 reporting the incident but the police did not appear in a mood to help him immediately and, therefore, he filed the complaint in question the very next day. The opposite-party No. 2 was examined under section 200 CrPC and it appears that two witnesses were also examined under section 302 CrPC, and the applicants were summoned for an offence under section 406 IPC. Feeling aggrieved by this order the applicants have moved this application under section 482 CrPC, alleging that the complaint was filed on absolutely baseless allegations at the instance of S. N. Dwivedi mentioned in the complaint itself. It was further alleged that the said S. N. Dwivedi had been to Amolh and wanted to start some business there and had also taken some loan from Punjab Financial Corporation, Chandigarh, Punjab National Bank Mandi, Govindgarh Branch etc., but did not start any business and usurped the amount. He then started supplying coal to the applicants and although the applicants had made full payment against ;a receipt duly signed by S. N. Dwivedi yet he denied to have received the payment and demanded more money in order to blackmail the applicants. They refused to pay the amount over again and confronted him with his own receipt and consequently S. N. Dwivedi could not take any action through court or otherwise and accordingly he, through his friend LAL Mani Dubey opposite party No. 2 who also belonged to his own village manipulated to have his complaint filed falsely in order to harass the applicants so that they may have to run from Patiala in order to defend the case at Sultanpur. A counter affidavit was filed by the opposite party No. 2 admitting most of the facts about the complainant etc., and also the business carried on by the applicants although the extent of their business and their status was not clearly admitted. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicants who have also produced an extract of assessment order regarding income tax for the assessment year 1980-81.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants besides pointing to the above improbabilities and the accident of meeting the applicants on the way while opposite-party No. 2 was coming on an Ekka has also drawn my attention to the fact that a report is alleged to have been lodged with the police on 25-3-1981 and yet without waiting for investigations being conducted, the opposite-party No. 2 hastened to file this complaint on the very next day. It was alleged in the complaint that because the police was not prepared to take immediate action, therefore, he had per force to take the shelter of the court the very next day when he felt that the police was not going to help him. No copy of the FIR, has been filed and it is not clear whether any FIR, was actually lodged because what is alleged in the complaint is that information was conveyed to the police but it did not agree to render immediate help, and hence a complaint was being filed.