V.K.JHANJI, J. - (1.) THIS shall dispose of Criminal Misc. Nos. 5660-M, 4312-M and 7399 of 1994.
(2.) IN Criminal Misc. No. 5660-M of 1994, Shashi Bir Singh Sarang (petitioner herein) seeks the quashing of complaint dated 3.3.1994 and summoning order dated 4.3.1994, under Sections 323, 324, 406, 420, 452, 506 and 34 IPC and 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act and in Criminal Misc. No. 4312-M of 1994, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 7.3.1994 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, in which non-bailable warrants were issued and passport of the petitioner was ordered to be impounded. The third petition, Criminal Misc. No. 7399 of 1994 relates to the prayer made by the petitioner for summoning the witnesses in the suo motu contempt proceedings which were initiated by this Court vide order dated 30.3.1994 against Sh. N.K. Gaur, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ludhiana, asking him to show-cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against him. In brief, the facts are that Lok Priya Singh (respondent herein) filed a complaint against the petitioner and his brother, K.S.S. Sarang. In the complaint, petitioner has been shown to be resident of U.S.A., but at the time of filing of the complaint, resident of House No. 2376, Street No. 17, Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana. Petitioner's brother K.S.S. Sarang, has been shown to be resident of Delhi, but at the time of filing of the complaint, shown to be resident of House No. 2376, Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana. It has been stated in the complaint dated 3.3.1994 that K.S.S. Sarang met the complainant about two months before the filing of the complaint, in Mohalla Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana. He was introduced through one Ram Singh. K.S.S. Sarang alleged himself to be a property dealer of Delhi. Complainant expressed his desire to purchase some property at Delhi. K.S.S. Sarang induced the complainant to make payment of Rs. 50,000/- and assured him that he would purchase property for him at Delhi. Because of this assurance, on 4.1.1994 payment of Rs. 50,000/- was made to K.S.S. Sarang. The complainant wrote letters to K.S.S. Sarang at his Delhi address, but no reply to the same was received and it was only on 28.2.1994 that the complainant came to know from reliable sources that K.S.S. Sarang has come to his residence at Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana. He immediately contacted him and enquired about the property to be purchased for him (complainant). At that time, complainant was accompanied by one Ram Singh. When the matter was being discussed, brother of K.S.S. Sarang, namely Shashi Bir Singh Sarang, permanent resident of U.S.A. came there and both of them flatly refused to deliver back the amount of Rs. 50,000/- or to purchase property for the complainant at Delhi. Complainant, thus, returned disappointed. In the evening of 28.2.1994, both Sarang brothers, armed with revolvers, along with 5-6 persons armed with lathies, came to the house of the complainant. All of them illegally trespassed the house of the complainant and raised a Lalkara. K.S.S. Sarang caught hold of complainant from the neck and his brother took out revolver from the right dub of his pant and fired a shot in the air and thereafter, struck at the head of the complainant from its Butt side. The other persons gave Dang blows on the arm and body of the complainant. Complainant raised hue and cry, upon which Ram Singh, who had earlier accompanied the complainant and one Nirmal Singh, attracted at the spot and due to their timely intervention, the complainant was saved. It has come in the complaint that though the matter was reported to the police, yet the police flatly refused to register a case against Sarang brothers as they are influential persons. In the last paragraph of the complaint, it has been alleged that Sarang brothers have committed an offence under Sections 323, 324, 406, 452, 506 and 34 IPC and under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act at Janta Nagar, Ludhiana and, therefore, the Courts at Ludhiana have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complaint was filed on 3.3.1994, when on that very day, statements of the complainant, Ram Singh and Nirmal Singh, witnesses, were recorded and vide order dated 4.3.1994, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, ordered the summoning of Sarang brothers for 7.3.1994. On 7.3.1994, summons were received back with the report of refusal. The learned Magistrate having satisfied himself that presence of Sarang brothers cannot be procured in an ordinary way, ordered their summoning through non-bailable warrants. The Judicial Magistrate also recorded in his order that "the complainant has also pressed the application for impounding the passport of the accused No. 1 and for direction to Air Port Authority, New Delhi, not to allow the accused No. 1 to leave India. Heard. The passport of accused No. 1 is ordered to be impounded. A separate letter be also sent to the Chief Air Port Authority, New Delhi, that passport of accused No. 1 has been impounded and he should not be allowed to leave the country". Pursuant to this order, K.S.S. Sarang was arrested on 11.3.1994 and brought to Ludhiana, when he was ordered to be released on bail on 12.3.1994. As the luck would have been, petitioner was not present when the police party came to arrest him. He applied to this Court for anticipatory bail. This Court on 22.3.1994, allowed interim bail to the petitioner, pending notice to the complainant for 28.3.1994. Complainant could not be served for 28.3.1994 and having considered the argument of counsel for the petitioner that a deliberate effort is being made by the complainant to evade service so as to prevent the petitioner from leaving the country, the case was adjourned to 30.3.1994 and Dasti summons were ordered to be given so that the complainant could be served through the Magistrate before whom complaint was pending for 29.3.1994. Various orders passed by the Magistrate on 29.3.1994 which have been placed on record, show that none was present for the complainant at 10.25 a.m. The case was then called at 11.30 a.m. when complainant again was not present. The case is then stated to have been taken up at 12.30 p.m. when allegedly no one was present on behalf of the accused, but complainant has been shown to be present and, therefore, the case was ordered to be taken up after lunch. After lunch, complainant again was not present, but accused were present. The learned Magistrate also recorded that the accused has produced Dasti summons to serve the complainant. Having received the summons, the Magistrate recorded that case be taken up after some time. Again at 3.35 p.m. the Magistrate recorded that "counsel for the complainant has moved an application for exemption of the complainant. Heard. The application is allowed and the presence of the complainant is exempted for today. Now come upon 11.4.1994 for further proceeding. The summons of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, are returned in original to the accused with the said report". On 30.3.1994, after having perused not on the summons, V.K Bali, J, issued suo-motu contempt notice to Sh. N.K. Gaur, Judicial Magistrate Ludhiana, Mr. N.K. Gaur, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, has filed reply to the contempt notice in which he has denied that any deliberate attempt was made not to serve the complainant. Subsequently, Criminal Misc. No. 5660-M of 1994 has been filed for quashing of the complaint. Complainant in his reply has opposed the prayer for quashing of the complaint.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record, I am of the view that Criminal Misc. No. 5660-M of 1994 deserves to succeed. Complaint in question is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and manifestly has been filed to harass the petitioner who is permanent resident of U.S.A. and had come to India for a short visit. The allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person would ever accept it. No particulars of kind and nature of the property which the complainant wanted to purchase, have been given. It has not been mentioned that as to at what price the complainant wanted to purchase the property. No receipt or agreement is alleged to have been taken or executed at the time when payment of Rs. 50,000/- was made to the petitioner. There is no evidence, documentary or otherwise, either produced before the Magistrate or before this Court to show that sum of Rs. 50,000/- allegedly paid to petitioner, was withdrawn from any bank, or at the relevant time the complainant was in possession of that much amount. No evidence regarding medical examination of injuries alleged to have been caused to the complainant, has been brought on record. Interestingly, on all three different occasions when the complainant met the petitioner, only Ram Singh, who is a labourer, was present. Again when injuries are alleged to have been caused, only Ram Singh and one Nirmal Singh attracted at the spot, though they are residents of different mohallas. The subsequent events of getting issued non-bailable warrants after procuring a false report of refusal of service and also an effort made not to serve the complainant, show that the only motive of the complainant was to somehow ensure that petitioner is not able to go abroad. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the complaint in question has been filed only in order to harass the petitioner, who is permanent resident of U.S.A. and his brother, who is permanent resident of New Delhi and to prevent this uncalled for an unnecessary harassment, the complaint deserves to be quashed with exemplary costs. Accordingly, the complaint shall stands quashed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the complainant to the petitioner. Resultantly, the summoning order dated 4.3.1994 and the proceedings initiated thereon shall also stand quashed.;