OM PARKASH DOBHAL Vs. VINAY MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the currency of this petition under section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner seeks quashment of the criminal complaint for the offence under sections 500/323/504 R.P.C., inter alia on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence much less the offence under sections 500/323/504 R.P.C., in which the learned Magistrate has taken the cognisance and issued process, after recording the preliminary statements of the complainant and the witnesses produced by him. One Vinay Mahajan, claiming to be one of the Directors of Upkar Goods Company Pvt. Ltd, having its registered office at Panjbakhtar Road, Jammu, filed a complaint against Om Parkash Dobhal for offence under sections 500/323/504 R.P.C., on 08/02/2003 alleging therein that the accused is an employee of L.G. Private Limited and working as Depot. Incharge of the Firm at Jammu in the Year 1998-99. The Company of the complainant had transported their goods from Jammu to Srinagar and a balance of Rs. 50,950.00 was payable by the accused and his employer-L.G. Company. Many a times the accused and his employer were approached even through notices and the latter showed that the balance amount shall be paid on his visit to Jammu. It is stated that on 10/02/2003, the accused-petitioner came on official tour to Jammu and stayed at K.C. Residency, Jammu and the complainant along with Senior Manager-Shri Neeraj Kant Sharma and Shri Mukesh Salaria-Accounts clerk, met the accused-petitioner in the said hotel and demanded the payment. The accused had once flew into a rage, exchanged hot words and named their Company a cheat and fraud and showered filthy abuses. It is also further alleged in the complaint that the accused-Om Parkash Dobhal threatened the complainant, caught hold of him from collar and pushed him out of the room, lest he would be beaten to death. The complainant, further, stated that the accused has intentionally insulted him and defamed him and provoked him knowing well that it may result in breach of public peace. The Trial Court after recording the preliminary statements of the complainant and one witness namely Neeraj Kant Sharma, took cognisance against the accused for offence under sections 500/232/504 R.P.C. and issued process.

(2.) Normally, the High Court is reluctant to interfere with the ordinary course of the law and substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the Magistrate who is trying the case, before the completion of the trial. But where facts are so preposterous that the High Court feels satisfied that on the admitted facts there is no case against the accused and is clearly of the view that a further prolongation of the prosecution would amount to harassment, abuse of the process of the court, it is the duty of the High Court to interfere in invoking its inherent jurisdiction in order to put an end to this abuse. In other words before exercise of the inherent jurisdiction for quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court has to satisfy that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence or that exercise of the power is necessary either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. No inflexible guidelines or rigid formula can be set out and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

(3.) Adverting to the facts of the case and the allegations made in the complaint it is clearly elicited that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 10/01/2003 in the hotel room of K.C. Residency, Jammu, whereas complaint has been filed in the Court on 08/02/2003 almost after a month. There is no explanation rendered by the complainant with regard to the delay in filing the complaint particularly when police station is at a distance of few yards from the said hotel. It is also not stated in the complaint that after remaining silent over the matter about a month, what prompted him thereafter to approach the Court to file the complaint. One cannot escape in such circumstances to understand that the complaint is made after-thought and manipulation creeps into it. The allegations set out in the complaint disclose that the complainant had approached the accused and demanded the balance amount on account of transportation of goods of the Company of which the accused-petitioner was an employee in the way back 1998-99. It further reveals that the amount was recoverable from the Company and accused was only its employee who has since been transferred to Noida in Delhi. It is stated that in the complaint that when the complainant demanded money from the accused, the latter got irritated and flew into rage, showered filthy abuses and caught hold him of from the collar and threatened him that in case he did not leave the room, he would be beaten to death besides calling the complainant's Company as cheat and fraud. It is also in the complaint that the Senior Manager and the Accounts Clerk also accompanied the complainant at that time. It does not sane to common sense that when there is exchange of hot words and shouting in the hotel, nobody from the management of the hotel nor from the customers in the adjoining rooms came on spot. The accused was admittedly alone and it is not understandable that he is alleged to have caught hold of the complainant from collar when the latter was accompanied by two more persons and pushed him out of the room. When all these facts are taken in cumulative on its face value with the background narrated above, it does not prima facie disclose alleged criminal offence against the accused and would tantamount to be an abuse of the process of the Court. Apart from that, the allegations made in the complaint are neither specific nor clear. The facts set forth in the complaint, at the most, disclose that it may be a case of civil nature viz., pertaining to recovery of money and the complainant cannot be allowed to have a recourse to the criminal action against the accused for the alleged liability.