DILBAGH SINGH SANDHU Vs. ASHWANI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks the quashing of criminal complaint (Annexure P5), summoning order (Annexure P6) and the entire proceedings initiated thereunder. Apart from these orders, quashing of order dated 4.12.1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar issuing non-bailable warrants has also been prayed for. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition may be noticed. Respondent Ashwani Kumar is a class-IV employee working in the office of Soil Conservation Officer. The petitioner is posted as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer and is Incharge and Head of the Office of the Controlling Authority of the respondent. The respondent filed the criminal compliant annexure P5 against the petitioner in the Court of the Duty Magistrate, Amritsar under Sections 342/323/504/506 IPC, Police Station, Islamabad in the Sections Division of Amritsar. The criminal compliant alleged, inter-alia that the respondent-complainant was asked to clean some plants at the house of the daughter of the petitioner-accused and while performing that work he cut some plants wrongly and thereby incurring wrath of the petitioner-accused who abused him and beat him with a stick. The other employees, namely, Niraj Kumar, Satnam Singh and Beldev Singh, who were working with the respondent- complainant came to his rescue. It was also alleged that the respondent- complainant was illegally detained by being locked in one of the rooms in the house of the daughter of the petitioner-accused. Thereafter, on the arrival of the daughter and with the help of the said employees he was taken out of the room but the accused threatened the respondent-complainant with dire consequences by taking the help of his known persons who were terrorists. Witness Niraj Kumar took the respondent-complainant to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Amritsar where he was medically examined on the same day at 3.00 P.M. The respondent-complainant made his grievance before the higher authorities. The complaint was eventually filed on 2.9.1992.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had developed the habit of coming late in the office and leaving office early. As a result of the indiscipline and insubordination on the part of the respondent, he was pulled up by the petitioner quite often. The respondent has been described as a mischievous person and accused of creating indiscipline in the Office of the petitioner. The respondent in order to harass and embarrass the petitioner has filed the criminal complaint on false and frivolous allegations. A complaint filed by the respondent to the higher authorities i.e. Chief Soil Conservation Officer, copy annexure P1, was entertained and the Chief Soil Conservation Officer demanded an explanation of the petitioner who submitted his explanation, a copy of which is placed on record as annexure P2. Another complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioner through his mother Smt. Kamo Rani before the District Removal of Grievances Officer who asked the petitioner to appear before him and a copy of the letter issued by the Block Soil Conservation Officer is placed on record as annexure P3. The impugned criminal complaint is sought to be quashed on the grounds, inter-alia, that the continuance of the proceedings in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. The sole aim of the respondent in filing the criminal complaint is to embrrass his superior Officer i.e. the petitioner. The respondent had a grudge towards the petitioner as the latter used to pull up the former for his lapses and indiscipline and insubordination. The criminal complaint has been described as vindicative, vexatious, oppressive and has been made for ulterior motives. It has also been mentioned that if there had been any truth in the allegations made by the respondent, then the matter ought to have been reported to the police immediately after the respondent got himself medically examined. The medical examination was got done without even informing the police. The injuries noted in the medical certificate are self-inflicted and not inflicted by the petitioner. Regarding the impugned order of summoning it has been alleged that the order has been passed by the learned Magistrate without applying his judicial mind and had he done so, he would have at once come to know that the complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious. The impugned order dated 4.12.1993 has been challenged on the ground that the application for personal exemption of the petitioner was rejected for no valid reasons. The learned Magistrate could not straightaway issue non-bailable warrants against the petitioner without coming to a tentative finding that the petitioner had deliberately or intentionally avoided to appear in his Court on the date fixed.