JAI SINGH SEKHON, J. - (1.) THE complainant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the orders dated 2-11-1987 and 2.3.1989 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana respectively.
(2.) THE brief resume of facts is that Shri S.K. Jain, Office Supervisor, Madhura Coats Ltd., Rakh Bagh, Civil Lines, Ludhiana filed a complaint for offence under Section 500 IPC, alleging that accused Raj Kumar joined as driver in the above referred company in the year 1981. The accused used to overawe the officers of the Company. The complainant received threatening letters to the effect that he and his family shall be annihilated and the office building shall be destroyed if ransom money was not paid. Apprehending danger to his life, the complainant moved the local police for necessary action. The accused is alleged to have given an application dated 13-7-1985 to the Police against the management of the Company alleging that the management had invented a new method about receiving threatening letters from the terrorists in order to curb the activities of the trade union and the management had harassed Kashmir Singh, a member of the union, by getting him detained at the Police Station. It was further alleged in the complaint by the accused that the management being a rich management can corrupt the local police to any extent. The trial Court vide its order dated 1-7-1986 after recording evidence of the complainant as well as Ram Singh (PW 2), Gurmel Singh (PW 3), Gurmit Singh (PW 4) and Mohinder Singh (PW 5), summoned the accused for facing trial under Section 500 IPC and discharged the accused by holding that no prima-facie case is made out for framing the charge for offence under Section 500 IPC. The complainant then preferred a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide impugned order dated 2-3-1989 on the technical ground that the complainant was not an aggrieved person as defined in Section 199(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the trial Court was not competent to take the cognizance of the offence under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant being Office Supervisor of the Branch office of the Company located at Ludhiana was an aggrieved person being a member of the management and thus competent to file a complaint for offence under Section 500 IPC. Thus he maintains that the impugned order of the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge should be set aside and the case be remanded for redecision of the revision petition by the Sessions Judge on merits. The accused-respondent appeared in person and controverted the above version contending that Senior Sales Manager is the Incharge of the Branch Office of the Company at Ludhiana and thus the complainant cannot be said to be a member of the management of the company. The accused had also referred to the statement of the complainant recorded by the trial Court in this regard.;