AJIT SHARMA Vs. MEENU SINGH DHINDSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Ajit Sharma, Anita Sharma and Kishan Chand have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint dated 19.2.2002 (Annexure P-2) filed by respondent Meenu Singh Dhindsa and summoning order passed therein dated 25.1.2003 (Annexure P-3) whereby the petitioners along with 3 others have been summoned to face trial under Sections 420/460/506 IPC.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respondent Meenu Singh Dhindsa filed a complaint against the petitioners and 3 others stating that on 25.2.2001 her landlord Ajit Sharma came to her house and offered to send her son to America for which expenses to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs would be incurred. It is stated that initially the complainant gave Rs. 50,000/- in the office of petitioners at Amritsar and also gave them photograph and photostat copies of ration card and matriculation certificate in the presence of her sister and her husband. She was assured that her son's tickets and passport would be arranged within three months. On 1.11.2001 when complainant along with her husband allegedly went to the house of petitioners to enquire about the passport and visa, they were asked to give them Rs. 25,000/- and to arrange the balance amount within 10 days. On the assurance given by the petitioners, respondent gave Rs. 25,000/- to Anita Sharma, petitioner No. 2 and since then the complainant had been enquiring from the petitioners about the visa and passport. When petitioners did not arrange either the passport or visa for a considerable time, respondent asked for return of money, but the petitioners kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, on 25.1.2002, petitioners flatly refused to return the money or to make any arrangement for sending her son abroad.

(3.) THE petitioners have challenged the summoning order as well as the complaint filed by the respondent. It is stated that respondent Meenu Singh Dhindsa was inducted as tenant in the house of petitioners Ajit Sharma and Anita Sharma by an oral tenancy. Afterwards, ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was filed by the petitioners for ejectment of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and creating nuisance in the house by her act and conduct. The aforesaid rent petition was accepted by the Rent Controller vide order dated 1.8.2001. The respondent was ordered to be ejected from the demised premises and she was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises within 3 months from the date of order. It is further pleaded that after passing of ejectment order against her, the complainant has filed the present complaint as a counter-blast in order to harass the petitioner. It is pleaded that in the above circumstances, it was highly improbable that petitioners would approach the complainant with an offer to send her son abroad on payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- and complainant would accept the offer and pay Rs. 50,000/-. When the parties were in litigation and petitioners had filed ejectment petition which was accepted on 1.8.2001, it was not possible that respondent would agree to the proposal of sending her son abroad by the petitioners and for that purpose would give the money as alleged. It is well known that when an ejectment petition is instituted, the relations between the landlord and tenant become strained and in such a situation no tenant would hand over such a huge amount to the landlord for sending his/her son abroad. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent for 7.10.2003. However, none appeared on her behalf despite service.