SUKHBIR KATARIA Vs. KASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present judgment shall dispose of three petitions i.e. CRM-M-39202-2018, CRM-M-54078-2018 and CRM-M-16754-2019, since the same are arise out of same set of proceedings.

(2.) The present petition has been filed by Sukhbir Kataria, who is the 6th accused in a private complaint bearing No.16 dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) filed by the respondent under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 31 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1950. Challenge has been raised under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) for quashing of the said complaint, in which the petitioner has been summoned vide order dated 23.03.2013 (Annexure P-2) by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon ( for short 'JMIC'), for the offences under IPC only, on the ground of being abuse of process of Court. Challenge has also been raised to the orders dated 07.04.2018 (Annexure P-4), wherein the application of the petitioner for dismissal of the complaint had been rejected by the JMIC and the order dated 06.08.2018 (Annexure P-6), wherein the revision petition against the said order was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon.

(3.) Petitioner-Devinder Singh Kadiyan, retired Assistant Food and Supply Officer, who is accused No.7 in the same complaint, also challenges the same set of orders, primarily on the ground that it is a malafide set of criminal proceedings to take political revenge from Sukhbir Kataria, who was MLA & Minister in Haryana Government as an independent candidate and that the complainant claimed himself to be the General Secretary of the Matdata Jagrook Manch, Gurgaon (for short 'Manch'), which is not a registered Society under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012. The complainant having a criminal background and had never any authority in law as such to initiate the proceedings. Apart from that admissibility of the evidence has also been questioned, on the basis of which the summoning order had been passed. Counsel has also placed reliance upon a order dated 18.09.2019 (Annexure P-11) in Crl. Complaint No.92 dated 21.02.2017 filed by the complainant in similar circumstances, in which the benefit of Section 197 Cr.P.C., was given to the petitioner and he was not summoned by the JMIC.