MEHARCHAND Vs. MEHRAJ UD IN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under section 561-A Cr. P.C. the petitioners, pray for quashing the complaint filed against them by the respondent/complainant in which the court below has issued process under sections 307/34,311 and ,450 RPC. The grounds on which this petition has been based are that one Mr. A.K. Bansal, relation of the petitioners is a tenant of a shop measuring. 16x6 situated at Delhi, owned by one Prem Parkash Walia. The contention of the petitioners is that the said landlord, in an attempt to evict Mr. Bansal, tenant, relation of the petitioners, has started to pressurise the said tenant to vacate the shop, they have given instances of civil and criminal litigation at the instance of the landlord, by his relations, friends against the petitioners accused, relations of the tenant, in different courts of the country and the present complaint, sought to be quashed, entertained by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar and process issued, is one of the chain of litigation to pressurise the tenant to surrender the possession of the shop.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who vehemently argued that the complaint is baseless, short of definite accusation, making out no offence against the petitioners accused, who are residents of Delhi, not even known to the present complainant, who resides in Srinagar, as per averments made in the complaint. The complainant admittedly does not know the name of the petitioners accused which information he has received through one of the witnesses to the complaint. It was also argued that there is no connection of any kind whatsoever between the complainant and the petitioners/accused.

(3.) 1 have considered the arguments advanced and gone through the petition and contents of the complaint in question. The petitioners-accused have projected relationship of one Mr. A.K. Bansal, alleged tenant of shop situated at Delhi, owned by one Prem Prakash Walia, who puts pressure on the said tenant to get him evicted from the shop, regarding which civil litigation is pending before sub-Judge, Delhi. The said owner has managed through his friends and relations, complaints of criminal, nature against the relations of Mr. A.K. Bansal, tenant in different courts in different States, including one complaining under sections 323/504/506/427 RPC before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, and another complaint under sections 323, 350, 384,419 RPC before Judicial Magistrate (Judge Small Causes Court) Sri nagar, record of later has been called by this court in proceedings under section 56 I-A Cr. P.c. which has been lodged by one of the friends of the landlord. The so- called landlord is dealing in Pashmina, Shawls etc. In that connection he visits Srinagar, having developed business relations with locals and because of that he has managed to file the present complaint under sections 307/34, 311,450 RPC, sought to be quashed in this petition, against the petitioners, in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar by his alleged friend, the present complainant. The petitioner-accused No.1 is the cousin brother of the wife of Ashok Kumar Bansal, petitioner No.2, is brother-in-law, while petitioner No.3 is the brother of the said tenant. The complaint is on false and frivolous grounds simply to pressurise the said tenant to surrender the shop in question which has given rise to the present litigation.