GURDIP SINGH Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER alongwith six others have been summoned by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Abohar to stand their trial under Sections 452/323/427/379/354/504/506/148/149 IPC vide his order dated 7-8-1992 on a complaint filed by Ramesh Kumar. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the complaint and the impugned order dated 7.8.1992. Petitioners plea is that prior to the present complaint, Annexure P-1, Shiv Kumar brother of the husband of petitioner No. 3 had filed criminal complaint under Sections 323/324/452/354/379/564/506/148/149 IPC against Ramesh Kumar, respondent and others on 17-7-1992 and after perusing the preliminary evidence, the Magistrate has summoned Ramesh Kumar, Complainant and others who are facing trial. It has been further stated in the petition that Ramesh Kumar, accused in the complaint filed by Shiv Kumar tried to compromise the matter by putting pressure of close relatives and influential persons on Shiv Kumar but ultimately failed. It is further mentioned in the petition that the present complaint has been filed as a counter blast against Shiv Kumar and others including the petitioners. Notice of this petition was given. Respondent No. I has filed reply. In para No. 2 of the reply, Ramesh Kumar has admitted that Shiv Kumar had filed a complaint against him and others. It has been stated in para 5 of the reply that the occurrence of the present complaint is dated 5.8.1992 and since police did not take action against the petitioner and tried to linger on the matter, the present complaint has rightly been filed by Ramesh Kumar and others on 7.8.1992. In para 6 of the reply, it has been admitted that Gurdeep Singh and Rajinder Soni petitioners are witnesses of the complaint filed by Shiv Kumar.

(2.) MR . A.S. Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that Ramesh Kumar has filed complaint Annexure P-1 with a view to harass the petitioner and that the complaint has been filed with ulterior motive as a counter blast to the complaint filed by Shiv Kumar, Annexure P-2. In support of his argument, he has relied upon Narain Singh v. Devinder Singh, 1988(1) RCR 452. Mr. Vinod Khunger, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, has contended that a clear-cut case of threat and of trespass is made out against the petitioners; that the complaint does disclose commission of offence by the petitioners; that the allegations are to be gone with by the trial Court and that, therefore, no case for quashing the complaint and the summoning order passed by the Magistrate is made out. It has been further contended by Mr. Khunger that the inherent power does not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice and that power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2229

(3.) DUE to the above mentioned circumstances, the summoning order passed by the trial Court in that case was quashed.