- (1.)THIS is an application by Remal Das under Sections 561-A and 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for (1) the quashing of certain proceedings initiated against him by the respondent Daya Shanker and (2) in the alternative for transferring the case from Farrukhabad to Meerut. The applicant states in his affidavit that he is running a tea stall on the station road, Moradabad as well as a cycle-rickshaw stand on the same road Both the shop and the cycle-rickshaw stand are situate outside a cinema known as 'dilshad Cinema' This cinema also maintains a cycle-rickshaw stand for the use of its patrons According to the applicant the management makes a charge of two annas per cycle whereas he charges one anna only, and thereby he attracts more customers than the management The applicant alleges that the management had made several attempts to persuade him to remove his cycle stand and even threatened him in various ways, but he refused, and this created ill-feeling between the management and the applicant He states that the dispute has led to litigation, civil and criminal. (It is not necessary for me to give the details of this litigation)
(2.)ACCORDING to the applicant, the management of the cinema finding themselves unsuccessful in their efforts to drive him out from the cycle stand, contrived to get a criminal complaint filed against him in the Court of Farrukhabad through the respondent Daya Shanker. He alleges that this Daya Shanker is connected with the management in this way the proprietors of Dilshad Cinema, Moradabad are Sri Rajesh Khanna and Smt. Maya Devi who are partners. The husband of Maya Devi is Chiranji Lal Chopra who runs several cinemas in different places, one of which is the Kamal Cinema in Farrukhabad. They got the respondent Daya Shanker, who lives in Fatehgarh at a distance of three miles from Kamal Cinema, to file a complaint against the applicant under Sections 406 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the applicant, the complaint is false and frivolous.
(3.)A copy of this complaint has been attached to the applicant's affidavit. In it Daya Shanker alleged that the applicant, on 23-5-1965, obtained Rs. 50 from him under a false pretext and also borrowed from him a lot a worth Rs. 4 and a plastic bag worth Rs 1. 50 which he never returned. Daya Shanker alleged that he made the acquaintance of the applicant for the first time during a visit to Moradabad when they discussed a proposal for doing business together. Afterwards, on 23-5-1965, the applicant went to Moradabad and represented that he had made a deal with a bidi agency firm but had fallen short of cash and required a loan of Rs. 50. Believing his story, Daya Shanker advanced him this amount and the applicant went away but never came back. On the next day Daya Shanker made inquiries of the bidi people who told him that no person of the name of the applicant had approached them or made any deal with them on the previous day In this way according to Daya Shanker the appellant had cheated him and committed an offence under Sections 406 and 417. I. P. C The applicant's case is that these allegations are false as he had never been in the district of Farrukhabad and never visited Fatehgarh. According to him the complaint had been filed only to harass him and to compel him to submit to the illegal demand of the management of the Dilshad Cinema at Moradabad.