RAM NIWAS KOSALIA Vs. NARENDER KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint (Annexure Pl) and the order dated 5.6.1990 (Annexure P2) summoning the petitioner for an offence under Section 506, I.P.C. In short, the facts of the case are that the respondent Narinder Kumar Jain is a practising lawyer at Bhiwani, who filed the complaint in question against the petitioner who is posted as Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) at Ambala. In the complaint, it is alleged that on 12.4.1990, the complainant appeared as a counsel in a case before Shri K.S. Arora, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Bhiwani. Some unpleasant and not liked by the complainant incident took place during the said proceedings and later on the alleged misbehaviour of Shri K.S. Arora became source of discussion and agitation among the Taxation Bar at Bhiwani so much so the said episode appeared in the newspaper. In the background of this incident, it is further alleged that on 21.4.1990, the complainant and a few others were sitting in the office of the complainant and were talking about the programme to honour the Deputy Chief Minister, Haryana as Chief guest on some function which was to take place on 27.4.1990. When the complainant was sitting with others in his office, a telephonic call is alleged to have been received from the shop of now Shri Brij Lal Saraf at Bhiwani. In due course, said Brij Lal told the complainant that the present petitioner (respondent in the complaint), was on the line and would like to talk to him. It is further alleged in the complaint that there was a talk between him and the present petitioner. For clarity sake and to draw true meaning and intent of conversation the said conversation as given in the complaint in Hindi is as under :

(2.) FURTHER , it is also said that the said talk was threatening in tone (Roman version of which has been given above). In due course, as alleged in the complaint, the said incident was discussed in the subsequent meeting. The precise grouse of the complainant is that the said threat "DEIKH LOONGA" in the said conversation, amounts to criminal intimidation, punishable under Section 506, IPC. With these allegations the complaint was filed on 1.5.1990.

(3.) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard. A careful perusal of the complaint and the conversation in its Roman version as given above, shows that no offence under Section 506, IPC is made out. Mr. R.S. Ghai counsel for the respondent has very fairly conceded that the words "MAIN DEKH LOONGA" and again "THIK HEI DEIKH LOONGA', are the only offending allegations in the complaint, making out a case under Section 506, IPC . For facility sake, Section 503, IPC which defines criminal intimidation, reads as under :