V.M.JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482, CrPC, filed by the accused-petitioners, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint, copy Annexure P1, under Sections 420/468/471/379/120B, IPC, filed by the complainant-respondent, Deep Kumar Gupta, against the accused-petitioners and their co-accused "Mr. Goel", Manager, Central Bank of India, Batala, and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon.
(2.) IN the present petition under Section 482, CrPC, filed by the accused- petitioners, it was alleged that Rajesh Kumar, son of Kewal Kumar, petitioner, was married with Smt. Upma, daughter of Deep Kumar Gupta, respondent, in the year 1984. It was alleged that said Rajesh Kumar died on 24.2.1992, leaving a Will, resulting in property dispute between the family members regarding the succession to the properties of Rajesh Kumar, deceased. It was alleged that Smt. Upma wd/o Rajesh Kumar and daughter of Deep Kumar Gupta, filed a criminal complaint under Sections 320/406/379, IPC, on 5.6.1992, copy Annexure P2, against the present petitioners and their co-accused, Smt. Sunita, wife of petitioner No. 3, Ravinder Kumar, levelling allegations of cheating, mis- appropriation and theft, etc. It was alleged that subsequently, Smt Upma Gupta and petitioner No. 1, Kewal Kumar Gupta, entered into an agreement dated 22.6.1992, copy Annexure P3, which was signed not only by Smt. Upma Gupta and Kewal Kumar Gupta, but was also signed by Deep Kumar, father of Smt. Upma Gupta. It was alleged that in pursuance of the said agreement, receipt dated 2.7.1992, copy Annexure P4, was executed by Smt. Upma Gupta, which was also signed by her father, Deep Kumar. It was alleged that as a result thereof, Smt. Upma Gupta did not pursue the criminal complaint, copy Annexure P2, which was filed by her against the petitioners and accordingly, on 6.9.1992, the said complaint was dismissed by the learned Magistrate for want of prosecution. It was alleged that subsequently, in respect of FDRs, etc., lying in the Bank, Smt. Upma Gupta, on 14.6.1993, filed a suit for mandatory injunction in the Civil Court at Batala, against the Central Bank of India. A copy of the plaint was attached as Annexure P5. It was alleged that in order to harass the petitioners, Deep Kumar Gupta, father of Smt. Upma Gupta, filed the present criminal complaint, copy Annexure P1, on 10.6.1993 on the same facts. It was alleged that the learned Magistrate had summoned the petitioners as accused in the said complaint, after recording preliminary evidence. It was alleged that the complaint, copy Annexure P1, was based on facts exclusively concerning Upma and these facts formed the basis of the complaint, copy Annexure P2. It was alleged that Smt. Upma Gupta got the compliant dismissed, in view of the compromise and concealing this fact that her father, Deep Kumar, filed the present complaint, even though he himself was a party to the compromise, entered into by his daughter, Upma Gupta. It was alleged that this would amount to abuse of process of Court. In the written reply dated 8.2.1994, filed by the complainant-respondent, Deep Kumar Gupta, it was denied that Rajesh Kumar had left any Will. It was alleged that accused-petitioners were out to grab the properties of Rajesh Kumar to the exclusion of Smt. Upma Gupta and her minor son and daughter, who were entitled to inherit the property. It was alleged that the earlier complaint, filed by Smt. Upma Gupta, was in respect of mis-appropriation of dowry articles as also acts of theft and cheating. It was alleged that the petitioners had returned the dowry articles to Smt. Upma Gupta, after the institution of criminal complaint and an agreement was arrived at and she withdrew the criminal complaint, filed by her regarding mis-appropriation of dowry articles. It was alleged that there was no agreement regarding the money due to her from the Firm of the petitioners, besides her claim to inherit the property of her husband and the theft of valuable documents. It was admitted that the earlier complaint was dismissed on 6.7.1992, as no one had appeared in that case on the said date. It was alleged that as per the legal advice that since the complaint was at the initial stage and the accused had not been served/appeared, fresh complaint with regard to theft and cheating could be filed, regarding which, there was no compromise, Smt. Upma Gupta did not appear in Court on 6.7.1992. It was alleged that the civil suit was filed on 14.6.1993, after the filing of the present criminal complaint. It was alleged that the earlier complaint was not with regard to the theft of FDRs and mis- appropriation thereof and the forgery of Will of the deceased husband of Smt. Upma Gupta, as these facts were not known at the time of Institution of the complaint by her. It was alleged that the learned Magistrate had ordered summoning of the petitioners as accused, on the basis of the allegations in the complaint and the preliminary evidence.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.;