LAWS(P&H)-1989-4-116

O P TANEJA Vs. KANSHI RAM

Decided On April 06, 1989
O P TANEJA Appellant
V/S
KANSHI RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A big giant in Omkar Mal Mittal-allegedly share-holder of M/s. Mittal Pipes Manufacturing Company, Hissar made his stooge Kanshi Ram described as Manager of his concern, filed a complaint against petitioner O.P. Taneja and Amjad Ali, Chairman of the Managing Committee and Deputy General Manager respectively of Punjab Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., Bhatinda, under Sections 506, 504 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having trespassed into the house of the complainant at Hissar, demand from his original entered into by them with Omkar Mal, slapped and abused him on the agreement being not handed over and extended to the complainant an empty threat of his own life and of his family members on account of his refusal to part with the agreement.

(2.) Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4800-M of 1985 has been filed by the two persons arrayed as accused in the complaint, for quashing of the complaint dated 5th July, 1985 on the grounds that it is based on false and faked allegations allegedly cooked by Omkar Mal through his stooge Kanshi Ram to meet out an insult to the petitioners at the hands of his employee only to wreak vengeance from the accused-petitioner for civil litigation filed by them against him on the basis of agreed settlement reached for valuable consideration, that both the petitioners were in Delhi on 30th June, 1985 - The alleged date of occurrence and that the complaint filed on 5th July, 1985 was obviously inordinately delayed and there was obviously a possibility of the version narrated therein being cooked up by Kanshi Ram in consultation with Omkar Mal. The agreement alleged to have been demanded from the complainant, was alleged to have been produced by petitioner No. 1 in Delhi High Court in Civil Suit No. 1545 of 1982 in the year 1982 itself. It was thus suggested that the entire cock and bull story narrated by the complainant gets wholly exposed.

(3.) I have heard Shri Vinod Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners, Shri S.S. Nijjar, Advocate, for the respondents and have carefully perused the records.