A.B.SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) BY means of this application U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has sought quashing of a criminal Complaint for an offence under sections 328, 324, 394 IPC filed by the O.P. and the proceedings in criminal case No. 2383 of 136 based on the said complaint pending in the court of 1st Addl. Munsif Magistrate Jaunpur.
(2.) THE criminal complaint was filed by the opposite party Laxmi Narain against the applicant Juhi, her daughter Champa Rani, both of whom are dancing girls and Baijnath who is their Sajinda alleging that the complainant who was very closs to Smt. Champa and Juni attended the marriage of their brother, where they asked him to accompany them to Bombay as they had arranged to purchase a flat. The complainant was asked to arrange for some money also. On 6.12.1986 at about 6.20 A.M. the complainant boarded Faizabad Parwadeeh passenger at Bhandaria Jaunpur station with a brief case containing Rs. 15,500/ - and clothes. The three accused persons were already present in the said train. As it was very cold, at the instance of Champa and Juhi, Baijnath gave a cup of tea from a thermos to the complainant who after consuming fell asleep. At about 9.45 A.M. when the train reached Varanasi and complainant woke up, he found the three accused persons not on the train and his brief case with the money was missing. The fellow passengers informed the complainant that accused persons allighted at Jalalganj station. On these allegations a prayer was made to summon the accused persons for trial for offences under sections 328, 334, 394 IPC. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of complainant and one Priya Singh under section 200 and 302 Cr.P.C. summoned the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The said criminal complaint filed by the opposite party and cognizance taken by the Magistrate have been challenged by the applicant as an abuse of process of court on the ground that the opposite party Laxmi Narain has been harassing her and her daughter by a series of litigations filed at his instance. He filed the present complaint when his earlier complaint was transferred from Junpur to Ghazipur and was ultimately dismissed in 1965. It is also contended that even on the basis of allegations in the complaint and evidence led in support, no offence at all under any of the Sections is made out. The opposite party in his counter affidavit has denied that the previous complaints against the applicant and her daughter were filed at his instance and has also contended that the present prosecution of the applicant has been launched and cognizance taken on account of there being sufficient materials to proceed.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record, it will be found that the proceedings arising out of the criminal complaint against the applicant and the other accused persons are clearly an abuse of process of court, as even if the allegations in the complaint and the evidence led in support thereof is taken on face value, none of the ingredients of offences under section 323, 334 and 394 are made out.;