LAWS(P&H)-1993-2-44

DHARAM PAL Vs. B S SAOHA

Decided On February 03, 1993
DHARAM PAL Appellant
V/S
B S Saoha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DHARAM Pal -petitioner was the complainant in the court of Additional CJM and the complaint relates to offences under Sections 165, 392, 120 -B, 504 and 323 IPC. That complaint was dismissed vide Annexure P -2 and a revision petition filed by the complainant was dismissed by Sh. S.S. Singh Dahiya, Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, and by means of the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the complainant -petitioner seeks quashing of those orders.

(2.) THE petitioner alleged that on March 1, 1988, at about 7 p.m., he was present at his brick -kiln situated in village Dhanwapur, Kanhiya Lal Sardana and Ladha Ram Pehuja were also present. All the six accused persons came in a Gypsy on which Vijay Kumar was the driver. As required by the accused, the complainant produced the concerned register of his brick -kiln for checking. In the garb of checking the stock accused -1 Sh. Saroha wrote some figures in a copy book in a hapazard manner and the two Sales Tax Inspectors accompanying him also assisted him. Sh. Saroha was a step away from the remaining party. Sh. Yadav accused -2 asked the complainant that he should pay some amount for Holi Sweets for two of their peons. Amount of Rs. 50/ - was paid to the two peons by the complainant and then Sh. Yadav demanded that they be paid their shares of the Holi festival sweets also. Complainant offered an amount of Rs. 100/ - each to the two Inspectors but this enraged Mr. Yadav and accused -1 to 5 came in front of the office of the complainant. Accused -3 Sh. R.K. Sharma flashed torch light inside the Gypsy of the complainant which was parked nearby. The brief case of the complainant was seen lying on the front seat of the Gypsy. Complainant was asked by the accused to open the brief case. There was substantial amount of cash in that brief case which was meant for disbursed among the workers. The accused party sat down in front of the office of the complainant and Sh. Saroha accused -1 asked the complainant to show his books of account and other records. After that accused -2 Sh. Yadav demanded that Rs. 5,000/ - be paid to Saroha accused -1, amount of Rs. 1,000/ - each be paid to himself and Sh. R.K. Sharma and Rs. 50/ - to the driver of their Gypsy. The complainant declined to oblige. Accused -1 Saroha then directed the other members of his party to take into custody the brief case lying in the Gypsy of the complainant. Complainant felt that the intentions of the accused were dishonest and mala fide so he firmly held the brief case and did not give it to the accused despite the fact that they tried to snatch it. Hue and cry was raised by him. Kanahya Lal and Ladha Ram as also Kishan Lal, Mistry, Gurdayal, Driver, and Ganju conductor of the truck came to his rescue and the accused were reprimanded by him. Accused -1 to 3 went away in their Gypsy. Accused -4 and 5 were left at the brick -kiln and were directed by the accused -1 to bring the record of the complainant's brick -kiln. Two cash books, two ledgers, one stock register, one sale register and one coal register for the year 1986 -87 and 1987 -88 were taken away without issuing any receipts. In order to cover up the illegal acts committed by the accused Sh. Saroha lodged a false report before the police against the complainant and the complainant was arrested and later on released on bail in that case. The facts were brought to the notice of the police by the complainant but no action was taken. Complainant then met the District Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Gurgaon along with some members of the brick kiln association and also tried to contact the Chief Minister of the State but in vain. The present complaint was then filed on 8.3.1988.

(3.) IN support of his allegations, the petitioner made his own statement and examined Kanhiya Lal. The Court also considered the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. relating to the case registered against the petitioner himself and on the assessment of this evidence as indicated above, the ld. Additional CJM found no material to proceed with the complaint and dismissed the same.