SOM MAHAJAN Vs. JITENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Som Mahajan and Smt Rajinder Mahajan petitioners seek quashing of summoning order Annexure P-2 by filing this petition under section 482, Cr. P.C.

(2.) The petitioners are being prosecuted on the basis of complaint flied by Jitender Kumar Aggarwal, for offences under sections 193, 196 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent had flied a petition under section 13 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1973, against the petitioners on 5.12.1990 and notice of this application was issued to them for 10.1.1991. They having not put in appearance on that date ex parte proceedings were ordered against them and the case was fixed for evidence for 23rd March 1991. On 7th February, 1991 an application supported by an affidavit was filed and it was alleged by the petitioners that the same contained con coated and false allegations, which are described as under: The petitioners are shrewd and mis chievious type of persons mentioned in para No. 2 of their application by respondents/accused in the learned Rent Controller, Gurgaon causing defaming the complainant in the eyes of judiciary as well as public which lowered down the prestige of the complainant and, therefore, accused/respondents are punishable. ii) In para No. 4 of the application by respondents/accused alongwith affidavit dated 7.2.1991 the accused made serious false allegations on the complainant saying that accused No. 2 respondent had received a summon alongwith copy of petition by post. While the accused fully knows that the accused No. 2 has been received summon in person with the copy of petition from the process server. Therefore, making false, concocted allegations knowingly in a court is punishable. iii) In para No. 5 of the application by respondents/accused alongwith the affidavit dated 7.2.1991 the accused made very serious allegations of forgery of signature of accused No. 2 on the summon by the complainant, when they fully know that the allegations are concocted, false accused clearly denied the receipt of summon through the process server, but wrongly says that the summon is received by accused No. 2 by post knowing the allegation on the complainant is absolutely false and fabricated. As mentioned above the accused No. 2 has received only summon through the process server and not by post and also accordingly signed the copy of summon as required and caused injury to the co m p Ia in ant. The respondent claims that he has been defamed by making of these allegations and further that the false allegations of forgery have also been made.

(3.) On the basis of the evidence recorded, the learned Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 9th December, 1991 summoned the petitioners for offences under sections 193, 196 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.