MONICA WIDHANI Vs. RAM NIWAS AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions are being decided together as the issue involved in all these pertains to the criminal complaint case no.445-1, dtd. 24/12/2007, titled Ram Niwas Agrawal v. Narinder Singh Lamba and others, under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 218 and 506 of IPC, pending before the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CRM-M-1340-2011, which has been filed for setting aside the said criminal complaint, Annexure P-10, as also the order dtd. 2/11/2010, Annexure P-1, whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the aforementioned offences.

(2.) Briefly, the facts relevant to decide these petitions are:

(3.) In this factual background, learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the impugned order passed by the Magistrate is erroneous as it ignores the settled proposition of law and summons the petitioners despite there being no material on record implicating them in the case. Even if the allegations in the complaint are taken to be true, ingredients of none of the alleged offences are even prima facie made out against the petitioners. Besides, they are officials of the BPCL, who discharged their duties in a bona fide manner in line with directions issued by the superior officers, and are not beneficiaries of the transaction in any manner. Secondly, none of the officials of the BPCL were named in the initial complaint filed by the complainant to the police on 20/12/2005, and the complainant cannot be permitted to implicate them in the impugned complaint filed two years later before the Magistrate on 24/12/2007. This is an abuse of the process of law. Thirdly, it has been contended that the dissolution deed was executed in 1988, but the complaint was filed only on 20/12/2005, alleging forgery and fraud. This inordinate delay itself shows falsity of the allegations which have been levelled only to settle personal scores. Fourthly, the allegations depict it is a civil dispute between the partners of the dealership, but the complainant has not initiated any civil proceedings in the matter and he cannot be permitted to initiate criminal action regarding the dispute. Lastly, it has been contended that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, dtd. 6/5/2010, accepting the criminal revision petition filed by the complainant and remanding the complaint to the Magistrate is itself without jurisdiction, as the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the order of remand. This is in violation of the settled law in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and another v. Shailesh bhai Mohanbhai Patel and others, 2012 (10) SCC 517.