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 1st 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 Un-controverted, 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 exparte ejectment order was passed against him by the Rent Controller on January 23, 1985. Copy of this order is Annexure P. 2. Later 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 Beailiff 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, 1985 (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 leveled in the complaint filed by the respondent are as follows;

(3.) 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 statements made by the complainant and the said Banarsi Dass Sarpanch.