JOGA SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are seeking quashment of complaint (Annexure P-9) lodged by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners under sections 452/506 IPC and the summoning order passed by the Magistrate dated April 6, 1996 (Annexure P-11).

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner No. 2 is the owner of SCO No. 175, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh. Petitioner No. 1 is his father. A portion of the first floor was demised to respondent No. 2 and Shri B.P. Chauhan on 3.12.1988 under a contract of lease. The petitioners have filed ejectment petition against respondent No. 2 before the Rent Controller. They have also filed another rent petition against respondent No. 2 claiming eviction on the ground of non-payment of rental arrears. Both the petitions are pending in the Court of the Rent Controller.

(3.) THE petitioners have also averred that on March 8, 1995, an FIR was registered at the instance of Smt. Manjit Kaur respondent No. 3, an employee of respondent No. 2, wherein certain allegations were made with regard to an alleged incident which occurred on March 7, 1995, at 12 noon. In this statement Manjit Kaur has levelled allegations against the petitioners that they came along with four/five persons, asked her to sign some papers, but as respondent No. 2 was not present, she declined to sign any paper. Thereupon all those persons went away. After some time the petitioners forcibly entered the demised premises, wherein respondent No. 2 is running her Beauty Parlour, abused Manjit Kaur, and Miss Meenu Mishra, who was also present there. They manhandled them, threw articles here and there, pushed Manjit Kaur and threatened and abused them. On that basis an FIR was registered. In pursuance of that report, the petitioners were summoned by the police. They filed a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C., which was allowed and they were enlarged on anticipatory bail. The CIA staff conducted investigation. After holding investigation CIA came to the conclusion that no offence is made out. They submitted report Annexure P-10 for cancellation of the said report, but no order has been passed with regard to that report, though that report was submitted in June 1995.