R.C.KATHURIA,J - (1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.8.1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh upholding the order dated 11.3.1991 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondents-accused under Sections 211 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) HARCHARAN Singh-complainant was employed as a Clerk in the office of the Director, Food and Supplies, Haryana, Chandigarh. His relations have been residing in village Devi Nagar where Hari Singh and Tarlok Singh respondents- accused also resided. He has been visiting his relations in village Devi Nagar. The visit of the complainant to his relations was not liked by the accused as they were inimical towards them. On this account both the accused before a grudge against the complainant and for that reason they had been making false complaints against him and his relations. One of the complaints was made by the accused in the year 1984 to the Managing Director, Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Punjab, Chandigarh. Another complaint dated 2.1.1986 was made by accused No. 2 to the Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab, Chandigarh and Managing Director, Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Tarlok Singh made complaint dated 23.11.1987 to the Secretary to Government to Haryana, Department of Vigilance, Chandigarh and in respect of the allegations made therein in enquiry was made by the Vigilance Department but the complaint was found to be baseless. This did not debtor the accused and in connivance with each other they made another complaint to the Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Vigilance Department, Chandigarh and again on 18.1.1988 to the Chief Minister, Haryana, Chandigarh. The substance of the allegations made against the complainant was that he had purchased land and had not sent an intimation in this respect to the department. The above stated false complaints made by the accused had lowered his prestige and status in the eyes of his colleagues in the department, friends, relatives and co-villagers. On the basis of these allegations, the complainant prayed that the accused be prosecuted under Sections 211 and 500 I.P.C.
(3.) HARCHARAN Singh, complainant supported the facts stated in the compliant when he appeared as CW-7/A. In addition, he examined Ashwani Kumar (CW-1), Avtar Singh (CW-2), Bhupinder Malhotra (CW-3), Shiv Shanker (CW-4), Dinesh Sharma (CW-5), Labh Singh (CW-6) and Anita (CW-7) in the preliminary evidence.;