SUDARSHAN KUMAR LUTHRA Vs. MADANLAL HARICHAND THAPAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : The petitioners who are some of the accused in Criminal Case No. 126/s of 1992 in which the learned metropolitan Magistrate s 27th Court at Mulund, Bombay issued process have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and under section 482 of Criminal procedure Code to quash the same on the ground that it is absolutely false and frivolous private complaint filed with a view to harass the petitioners and other accused.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the challenge made in this petition against the process issued in criminal case, it would be desirable to see the background between the family of the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and the Respondent No. 1 -complainant. Petitioner No. 1 s daughter was married to the son of the complainant in December, 1987. As the marriage was not successful, the divorce by consent had taken place between them before the Family Court at Bandra, Bombay. The reason mentioned in the petition for divorce is that the husband by name Sanjay and Respondent No. 1 complainant used to torture the petitioner No. 1 s daughter Harsha on account of inadequate dowry and for not meeting their unreasonable demands made for dowry. The divorce was effected ultimately in August 1991. Thereafter the Respondent No. 1 started harassing petitioner in various ways.

(3.) THE perusal of the complaint which is annexed at exhibit C to this petition shows that nine persons were made accused, however, process was not issued against accused Nos. 3 and 4 i. e. Harsha who was married to the son of the complainant and her mother Savita, as the Advocate for the complainant deleted their names from the complaint on 28-7-1992. The order of the issue of process was passed on 28-7-1992 after recording the verification statement of the complainant. Though the process was issued against original Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 to 9, the present petition is filed by only Original Accused Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 9. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and their employees run an educational institution in the name of KAREER College in bombay and are having several Branches all over the metropolis and suburbs. This petition came to be filed in this Court in September 1992. Rule was issued by this Court on 16-10-1992 and interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause (b) of the petition staying the hearing of the proceedings in the Criminal Case pending in the trial Court. Although the Respondent No. 1-complainant was served, yet neither the affidavit is filed in this Court contesting the averments made in the petition nor the complainant-Respondent No. 1 has appeared at any time either himself or through an Advocate.