OM PARKASH MEHRA Vs. KARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks the quashing of the complaint, Annexure P.4, filed by the respondent against him under Section 406/420, I.P.C., in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jullundur and the order of summoning dated October 25, 1986 (Annexure P.5) passed as a result thereof.

(2.) THE assertions which have been made in this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and which remain uncontroverted, as no reply on behalf of the respondent has been filed, are that Niyat Paul Singh who is the nephew of the respondent complainant i.e., son of his sister, is a tenant in a shop owned by the petitioner at Patiala; Rent Deed in this regard is Annexure P.1. The petitioner moved an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for his ejectment on the ground of non -payment of rent for the period November 1, 1983 to April 3, 1984. Since the said tenant failed to put in his appearance in those proceedings in spite of service, an ex parte ejectment order was passed against him by the Rent Controller on January 23, 1985. Copy of this order is Annexure P.2. Latter the petitioner launched the execution proceedings on July 25, 1985 in order to secure the possession of the demised premises. On November 1, 1985, the plaintiff reported back to the Court that the tenant had locked the premises and was not available. Permission of the Rent Controller was also sought to break open the lock of the demised premises. The said permission was granted vide order dated February 6, 1986 (Annexure P.3). Those execution proceedings are stated to be continuing even now. The allegations further are that the tenant having realised that his game was up and he was bound to be ejected from the above noted premises, has in conspiracy with the present respondent, i.e., the complainant got filed this false and frivolous complaint against the petitioner in order to harass him and to withdraw from those proceedings. The material allegations levelled in the complaint filed by the respondent are as follows : - "4. That the complainant asked the accused to take Rs. 1000/ - from him and hand over the same to his brother -in -law Balwant Singh, as the amount was required by him. 5. That the accused promised to hand over the amount to Balwant Singh and informed the complainant that the amount of Rs. 1000/ - would remain as a trust money with the accused; and that he would pay the same to Balwant Singh on his arrival at Patiala. 6. That the complainant on the assurance of the accused that he would pay the amount to Belwant Singh, paid Rs. 1000/ - in cash to the accused in the presence of Banarsi Dass Sarpanch and Paramjit Singh shopkeeper of Rainak Bazar, Jalandhar and Darshan Singh. 7. That on 30.7.1986 Belwant Singh came to Jalandhar and on enquiry he informed the complainant that he did not receive any amount from the accused. 8. That the complainant on the next day i.e. on 31.7.1986 want to Patiala and contacted the accused and asked him as to why he did not deliver the amount to Belwant Singh, which was lying with him as trust money. 9. The accused informed that he was in need of the amount and he used the same and promised to return the same to the complainant at Jalandhar by the next Sunday, i.e., 3.8.1986. 10. That the accused did not come on 3.8.1986 at Jalandhar, nor he paid the amount to the complainant." To provide the necessary context to the above noted allegations in the complaint, it may be stated here that the case of the respondent in this complaint is that he happened to meet the petitioner by chance when he was standing in the shop of one Paramjit Singh in Rainak Bazar, Jalandhar and Banarsi Dass Sarpanch was also there. The impugned summoning order, Annexure P.5, has been passed by the trial Court on the basis of the statement made by the complainant and the said Banarsi Dass Sarpanch.

(3.) IN the light of the above noted factual position, it is vehemently contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the move made by the respondent by filing the impugned complaint at the instance of Niyat Paul Singh, his nephew, is only a pressure tactic to got rid of the proceedings pending in the Court of Rent Controller, Patiala and is clearly a misuse of the process of the Court instead of controverting this stand of the petitioner's counsel all that is being highlighted by the learned Counsel for the respondent is that since the Judicial Magistrate at Jalandhar has only passed a summoning order as, yet the petitioner can establish his defence plea before the said Court and the said complaint should not be quashed at this stage. I see no merit in this stand of the learned Counsel for the respondent. In the given facts and circumstances of this case and the necessary backdrop which has been furnished by the learned Counsel for the petitioner which, as already pointed out, remains uncontroverted. I am satisfied that the complaint Annexure P.4 is only mischievous and has been filed with a view to pressurize the petitioner to withdraw from the proceedings which are pending against the nephew of the respondent complainant in the Court of Rent Controller, Patiala. In the light of that there cannot be any other conclusion than the one that by continuation of these proceedings the complainant wants to misuse the process of the Court. I, therefore, quash the complaint as well as the summoning order, Annexure P.4 and P.5 respectively. The net result is that the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jalandhar are dropped. Order accordingly.