SOM MEHTA Vs. SURINDER SINGH MANSHAHIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Code') for quashing of criminal complaint 'Surinder Singh Manshahia v. Dr. Som Metha and another', (File No. 17 dated 01.06.2010) (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom i.e. summoning order dated 09.02.2011 (Annexure P2), passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Budhlada.

(2.) Briefly stated, Surinder Singh Manshahia filed a complaint, on the allegations that, on 24.08.2009, the petitioner (respondent/accused No.1 in the complaint) demanded Rs.10,00,000/- and certificates of Sahibjit Singh son of the complainant, to get his admission in MBBS course, in presence of Mr. Vijay Kumar Singla, Advocate, Mansa. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.3,00,000/- and also gave certificates to the petitioner, in presence of Mr. Vijay Kumar Singla, Advocate. Thereafter, on instructions issued by the petitioner, the complainant paid another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to Hemant Kumar-respondent No. 2, in the complaint, at Delhi, but they failed to get his son admitted in MBBS course and also refused to refund the money. On 05.01.2010, the accused came to Bareta to meet the complainant and at that time, Mr. Vijay Kumar Singla, Advocate, Mr. Zany Kath Singla and Gurinder Makha, Advocates were present there. The accused promised to return the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of installments and handed over two cheques to the complainant in the name of Mr. V.K. Singla, Advocate, drawn by accused/respondent No. 2 with an understanding that they would pay the amount and will get the cheques back and will also issue a new cheque for the remaining amount. Accused paid Rs.1,00,000/-, got one cheque back and, thereafter, did not pay any amount.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner Dr. Som Mehta has been falsely and illegally implicated in the criminal proceedings. Mr. Vijay Kumar Singla, Advocate, Mansa in whose presence, the petitioner made a demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and certificates of Sahibjit Singh or payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner, has not been examined. It is submitted that Mr. Vijay Kumar Singla, Advocate has given an affidavit, deposing that the present petitioner has neither made any promise in regard to admission of the son of the complainant in MBBS Course nor the complainant has paid Rs.3,00,000/- to him, in his presence. It is argued that affidavit of Mr. Vijay Kumar Singla, Advocate (Annexure P7) and letter of Sharda University (Annexure P8) in regard to admission of Sahibjit Singh, prima facie, shows that a false complaint has been filed against the petitioner and the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P. and another , 2011 AIR(SC) 1905, wherein, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has referred to the principles of law enunciated by the Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others , 1991 1 RCR(Cri) 383 and one of the principles incorporated in para 3, reads as follows:-