CHAND SINGH DHU Vs. TRILOK CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.) is for quashing of complaint No.489 dated 25.01.2016 filed under Sections 323, 504, 458, 427, 395, 148, 149 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom and for setting-aside the summoning order dated 20.07.2012 (Annxure P2) passed by the trial Court vide which the petitioner and six other accused persons were summoned to face the trial as well as the order dated 29.10.2015 (Annexure P3) vide which the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Revisional Court.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as set up in the complaint filed by the respondent - Trilok Chand are that he is working on a shop i.e. Om Medical Agencies and the brother of complainant - Suresh Kumar Gupta, is the sole proprietor of the shop who has taken the Shop No.8 (earmarked as 'Chemist Shop') on licence in the Shopping Complex of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak (hereinafter to be referred as 'the PGIMS, Rohtak'). The complainant's brother Suresh Kumar Gupta had filed a civil suit before the Civil Court at Rohtak praying for a decree of injunction against the authorities of PGIMS, Rohtak not to evict him. In para 6 of the complaint, it is stated that Suresh Kumar Gupta, the proprietor of M/s. Om Medical Agencies, lost the case and vide order dated 28.04.2011, the Civil Court dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. It is further stated that Suresh Kumar Gupta had filed a civil appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 18.01.2012.

(3.) The learned Senior counsel has argued that it is further stated in the complaint that on 19.01.2011, accused Nos.1 to 5 (the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.7 being Director of the PGIMS, Rohtak) came to the shop and enquired about Suresh Kumar Gupta and directed the complainant to vacate the shop. Upon asking, they informed that accused No.6 - the Vice Chancellor of PGIMS, Rohtak had directed to get the shop vacated. Upon this accused No.3 made a telephonic call to the petitioner/accused No.7 and he came there along with 30-40 persons and removed the medicines and other goods lying in the shop, on a tractor. Thereafter, the complainant approached accused No.6 i.e. the Vice Chancellor of PGIMS, Rohtak, who refused to entertain his complaint and thereafter, the present complaint was filed with the allegations that all the accused persons have taken away medicines worth Rs.80/90 lacs along with other medical equipments and therefore, necessary action be taken against them.