REKHA MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'IPC') has been filed seeking quashing of complaint bearing No. 299/1 dated 14.11.2007 (Annexure P1), summoning order dated 09.09.2011 (Annexure P9) and proceedings emanating therefrom being abuse of process of law.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that rent petition No. 398 dated 21.07.1998 was filed by petitioner No. 1 against the complainant (respondent herein) seeking his ejectment from portion of shed measuring 60' - 6" x 30' approximately and one store measuring 17' - 3" x 13' - 6" of plot No. 17, 18 and 19, situated at Sainik Colony, Hira Nagar, Ludhiana on the premise that he was inducted as a tenant on 01.10.1996 @ Rs.10,000/ - per month. The complainant, on receipt of notice, appeared in the proceedings through counsel and filed vakaltnama and the case was fixed for filing of written statement but he absented from the proceedings and ultimately ex - parte ejectment order dated 30.11.1998 (Annexure P2) was passed against him. Petitioner No. 1 filed civil suit No. 13 dated 30.01.1999 for recovery of Rs.2,46,000/ - towards arrears of rent. In the said suit, the complainant put in appearance, but later absented from the proceedings and as a result, ex -parte judgment and decree dated 22.10.1999 (Annexure P3) was passed against him. Petitioner No. 1 filed application No. 12 dated 10.11.1999 for execution of judgment and decree dated 22.10.1999. In the execution application, machinery of the complainant was attached and auctioned on 2001 and a sum of Rs.1,12,000/ - was realized from the said sale. For realization of the remaining amount, warrants of arrest of the complainant were issued for 03.05.20 The complainant filed Civil Revision No. 2574 of 2002 before this Court to challenge order dated 03.05.2002, which was dismissed by this Court on 15.05.2002 (Annexure P6). The executing Court again issued warrants of arrest for 03.08.2002 and the complainant again filed Civil Revision No. 3264 of 2002 which was dismissed by this Court on 17.09.2002 with costs of Rs.10,000/ - by order dated 17.09.2002 (Annexure P7). The complainant filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'CPC') for setting aside judgment and decree dated 22.10.1999 which was dismissed in default on 28.10.20 3. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application dated 26.2003 for restoration of the application filed under order IX Rule 13 CPC. Another application was filed by him for stay of the execution proceedings till the decision of the application for restoration of proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 09.01.2004 and further issued conditional warrants of arrest of the complainant. The complainant filed another application for review of the aforesaid order which was dismissed by the trial Court on 03.01.2005 .
(3.) COUNSEL has further argued that on the basis of ejectment order, passed in favour of petitioner No. l, possession of the rented premises was delivered in favour of petitioner No. 1 in the year 1999. Failing in his efforts to thwart the proceedings in regard to execution of decree for recovery of outstanding arrears of rental passed as back as in the year 1999, the complainant in a deceitful manner filed the criminal complaint in November 2007 on the allegations that rent note dated 01.08.1997, showing the complainant to be a tenant of accused No. 1 (petitioner No. 1 herein) of the tenancy premises @ Rs.10,000/ - per month has been forged on a blank signed stamp paper, which was taken by Shri Joginder Singh (since deceased) father of Kulwinder Singh and father -in -law of Paramjit Kaur alias Manjit Kaur (petitioner Nos. 2 and 1 respectively) when the complainant obtained some loan from said Joginder Singh in the year 1997.;