SHASHI BIR SINGH SARANG Vs. LOK PRIYA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS shall dispose of Criminal Misc. Nos. 5660-M, 4312-M and 7399 of 1994.

(2.) IN Criminal Misc. No. 5660-M of 1994, Shashi Bir Singh Sarang (petitioner herein) seeks the quashing of complaint dated 3.3.1994 and summoning order dated 4.3.1994, under Sections 323, 324, 406, 420, 452, 506 and 34 IPC and 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act and in Criminal Misc. No. 4312-M of 1994, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 7.3.1994 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, in which non-bailable warrants were issued and passport of the petitioner was ordered to be impounded. The third petition, Criminal Misc. No. 7399 of 1994 relates to the prayer made by the petitioner for summoning the witnesses in the suo motu contempt proceedings which were initiated by this Court vide order dated 30.3.1994 against Sh. N.K. Gaur, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana, asking him to show-cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against him.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that Criminal Misc. No. 5660-M of 1994 deserves to succeed. Complaint in question is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and manifestly has been filed to harass the petitioner who is permanent resident of U.S.A. and had come to India for a short visit. The allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person would ever accept it. No particulars of kind and nature of the property which the complainant wanted to purchase, have been given. It has not been mentioned that as to at what price the complainant wanted to purchase the property. No receipt or agreement is alleged to have been taken or executed at the time when payment of Rs. 50,000/- was made to the petitioner. There is no evidence, documentary or otherwise, either produced before the Magistrate or before this Court to show that sum of Rs. 50,000/- allegedly paid to petitioner, was withdrawn from any bank, or at the relevant time the complainant was in possession of that much amount. No evidence regarding medical examination of injuries alleged to have been caused to the complainant, has been brought on record. Interestingly, on all three different occasions when the complainant met the petitioner, only Ram Singh, who is a labourer, was present. Again when injuries are alleged to have been caused, only Ram Singh and one Nirmal Singh attracted at the spot, though they are residents of different mohallas. The subsequent events of getting issued non-bailable warrants after procuring a false report of refusal of service and also an effort made not to serve the complainant, show that the only motive of the complainant was to somehow ensure that petitioner is not able to go abroad. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the complaint in question has been filed only in order to harass the petitioner, who is permanent resident of U.S.A. and his brother, who is permanent resident of New Delhi and to prevent this uncalled for an unnecessary harassment, the complaint deserves to be quashed with exemplary costs. Accordingly, the complaint shall stands quashed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the complainant to the petitioner. Resultantly, the summoning order dated 4.3.1994 and the proceedings initiated thereon shall also stand quashed.