J.S.SEKHON, J. - (1.) THE accused-petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the complaint (Annexure 'P-5') and the order (Annexure 'P-6') of the trial Court summoning the petitioners to face trial for offence under Section 380 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, inter alia on the ground that as ejectment proceedings under Section 13 of the Haryana (Urban Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, at the instance of Mange Ram-Petitioner were pending against Naresh Kumar-complainant, the latter had filed the complaint on fabricated allegations in order to pressurise the landlord from getting the tenant ejected from the property in dispute.
(2.) THE factual matrix, as contained in the complaint (Annexure 'P5') is as under :- "1. That in the year 1985, the complainant, being unemployed, thought of starting the business of manufacturing of woollen carpets and for that purpose took a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the Punjab and Sind Bank Limited, Gurgaon, through District Industry Centre, Gurgaon, which is admissible under the "Self Employment Scheme" of the Central Government regarding Unemployed Education Persons. 2. That with this point in view, he took on rent a vacant piece of land measuring 500 square yards from Mange Ram, accused No. 1, at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month for constructing the factory. But while handing over the possession of that land, the said Mange Ram accused No. 2 delivered the possession of only 340 square yards of land. It was in early March, 1985. 3. That the complainant then made construction on that land in the form of a big shed for fixing machines and handlooms, one office-cum- store, boundary walls of about 5' height all around and other ancilliary work i.e. filling of earth etc. which cost about Rs. 60,000/-. 4. That in May, 1985, the factory started functioning under the name and style "Krishna Carpets India" at Chander Nagar, Gurgaon with the complainants as its proprietor and Manager. 5. That due to enormous credits the factory incurred heavy losses, with the result that the manufacturing had to be stopped in July, 1988, and finally it was put under lock on November 18, 1988. The office-cum-store and the shed were locked separately. The former contained two carpets 6' x 9' worth Rs. 8,000/-. One carpet 8' x 10' worth Rs. 8,000/- and another carpet 9' x 12' worth Rs. 12,000/- (all pure woollen) and one iron table containing drawers, four iron chairs, two small wooden tables, two benches, one Muda etc. and a sign board, all worth Rs. 2,000/-. While the shed contained handlooms, machines, tools etc. worth Rs. 43,000/- Shri Sham Lal Panchal of Gurgaon happened to be present in the factory at the time when it was being locked on November 28, 1988. 6. That on November 30, 1988 at about 3 p.m. While the complainant was at his house, Shri Radhey Sham informed that on that day at about noon, when he (i.e. Radhey Sham) along with Ishar Singh of village Jharsa were passing by the factory, they noticed that all the accused, namely, Mange Ram, Subhash Chand, Satbir, Vajinder Kartar and Karan Singh had broken open the office-cum-store room's lock and were removing the carpets and furniture. On enquiry by Ishwar Singh as to why they were illegally removing the articles, Mange Ram accused has in a threatening tone said that "he (Ishwar Singh) was nobody to interfere, they would do whatever they liked". 7. That on receipt of this information the complainant along with Shri Radhey Sham went to the factory and found the lock of the office-cum-store room broken and removed. On scrutiny, the whole of the goods lying in it had been taken away illegally by the accused in pursuance of their common object to cause theft in a building by house breaking. 8. That then the complainant along with Shri Mahavir Singh went to the house of Mange Ram to enquire as to why he had taken recourse to such an action. On which he got enraged and said that either the complainant should go away or he would be done away with. At this the complainant returned to his house. 9. That the complainant then informed the Manager of the Punjab and Sind Bank, Gurgaon, as it had a lien on the factory, who referred the matter to the local Police under his endorsement through a registered cover for taking legal action. 10. That the complainant also held a Panchayat in the Baithak of Pt. Jai Lal Pensioner, which was attended by many respectables, namely, Shri Mam Chand, Ishwar Singh Sarpanch, Jai Narain former Sarpanch etc. and the accused, where Mange Ram accused confessed his guilt, beg for pardon and promised to return all the articles. But later on he did not keep his words and refused to return the goods. 11. That the complainant had been visiting police station several times and enquiring about the stage of the case, but they had always been assuring him that the needful would be done in due course. The complainant has always been agitating his case even with the higher authorities as well, but without any result. It has now been learnt that even a case has not been registered. What to speak of the investigations, hence this complaint is being filed now in your Hon'ble Court to seek redress. 12. That by this action all the accused had, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the object of the said unlawful assembly, broken open the lock of store-cum-office of the factory and removed the carpets and furniture worth Rs. 30,000/- illegally from out of the possession of the complainant without his consent and clandestinely and have thus committed an offence punishable under Sections 147/148/451/380 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused may very kindly be dealt with according to law and be punished suitably." The trial Court, after recording the preliminary evidence, had summoned the accused-petitioners to face trial for offence punishable under Section 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record. Simply because Mange Ram, accused petitioner, happens to be landlord of the premises in dispute which were rented out to Naresh Kumar-complainant and that litigation for ejectment of the tenant was pending between them, it cannot be said at this stage that the above-referred complaint had been filed by the tenant in order to pressurise the landlord for not pursuing the ejectment proceedings.
(3.) A few months' delay in filing the complaint is also of no consequence at this stage especially when the version of the complainant that he had been agitating with the concerned authorities for the registration of a criminal case and had resorted to filing this complaint after his efforts ended in smoke, is still uncontroverted. The trial Court is bound to go into all the allegations of the accused-petitioners taken in this petition at the time of framing the charge.;