M P SAINI Vs. NEERAJ MADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') is for quashing the Criminal Complaint (Annexure P/4) titled Neeraj Madan Versus M.P. Saini under Sections 323, 452 and 506 IPC, pending in the Court of Shri Jarnail Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad and the summoning order dated 23.4.2005 (Annexure P/10) passed by that Court.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he is the sole proprietor of the concern M/s Ddstha Mechanicals, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing of sound proof canopy chambers for generators and DG sets. Naresh Madan, husband of the complainant/respondent, purchased one such canopy, vide invoice No. 482 dated 21.5.2002 and paid Rs. 6,000/- in advance. Thereafter, another payment of Rs. 10,000/- was made. After delivery of the canopy, a cheque of Rs. 70,000/- dated 30.8.2002 was issued to the petitioner, which on presentation to the banker of Naresh Madan was dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds". After serving notice, he filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Before filing that complaint, he served a notice on Naresh Madan which was replied by him through his wife, who is an advocate by profession. On 28.1.2005, the respondent/accused moved an application (Annexure P/3) under Section 294 of the Code, for cutting short the litigation/dispute by admission and denial of the documents in his possession, stating therein that the Court can always afford an opportunity to both the parties to settle the matter amicably. In order to achieve her motive, in anticipation Neeraj Madan -respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in order to pressurize him to settle the matter in the said complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act. False and frivolous allegations were made in that complaint. She kept silent and concealed the factum of the complaint filed by her from the petitioner. On 1.8.2005, his counsel Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma was assaulted and given beatings by the Neeraj Madan-complainant and her husband regarding which FIR was got registered by the said advocate under Sections 323, 405, and 506 IPC. The complainant, alongwith some common persons, prevailed upon him for a compromise. The case was compromised on payment of Rs. 50,000/-, against Rs. 70,000/- due to the petitioner. At the time of that compromise, factum of the aforesaid complaint was never disclosed either by the complainant or her husband. He would not have received the payment of Rs. 50,000/-, against Rs. 70,000/-, after entering into the compromise, if he had the knowledge of the pendency of the complaint. No offence under Section 452 IPC is made out. There is no allegations of beatings so as to make an offence under Section 323 IPC. This complaint is nothing but an instrument of harassment and abuse of process of law.

(3.) It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that no offence is made out from the contents of the complaint and the same is liable to be quashed on that ground. He also contended that from the circumstances brought on record, it becomes probable that false complaint has been filed by the complainant on account of the previous litigation between the petitioner and her husband and she had been representing her husband as an advocate. The petitioner would not have entered into the compromise in the complaint filed by him against the husband of the complainant under Section 138 of the Act, if he had the knowledge of the pendency of the present complaint, which was kept as a guarded secret from him by the complainant.