J.M. Tandon, J. - (1.) SUJAN Singh Petitioner owns shop No. 2l/4, A ' Tank, Patiala which is in occupation of Ajit Singh Respondent as a tenant at Rs. 65/ -per month On November 7, 1977, the Petitioner filed an ejectment application against the Respondent from the shop detailed above on the ground of non -payment of rent with effect from August, 1976, On November, 30, 1977, the Petitioner recovered rent from the Respondent from August 1976. to December, 1976. in the Court of Rent Controller apart from Interest and cost of the application total Rs. (355/ -). The ejectment application was consequently dismissed. On November 39, 1977. the Respondent brought it to the notice of the Petitioner that the latter had already received the rent for the period from August, 1976 to December, 1976 and he had received the rent for the same period again unauthorisedly(sic). On December 11(sic), 1977, the Respondent served a registered notice to the Petitioner claiming refund of the amount of rent recovered from him unauthoisediy failing which proceedings under Section 403, Indian Penal Code, shall be initiated. The Petitioner did not respond nor did he refund the amount of Rs. 335/ - received by him from the Respondent on November 30,1977 The Respondent thereafter filed a Criminal complaint and the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, vide order dated July 1, 1 78, summoned the Petitioner under Section 403 Indian Pen 1 Code. The Petitioner filed a revision against the order of the Magistrate dated July 1, 1978, and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Patiala, vide order dated July 25, 1979 It is under these circumstances that the Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying that the proceedings initiated against him on the complaint of the Respondent be quashed inasmuch as the complaint does not disclose the commission of an offence on his part.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the complaint of the Respondent does not made out misappropriation of property on the part of the petitioner and at best it can make out a case under Section 109(sic) Indian Penal Code against him Under Section 190, Criminal Procedure Code, the Court is debarred from taking cognisance of an offence under Section 209, Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint In writing of the Court As no complaint in writing by the Court has been made and the complaint in fact has been filed by the Respondent himself, the Petitioner could not be summoned under Section 209, Indian Penal Code. Under these circumstances the proceedings initiated by the learned Magistrate on the complaint of the Respondent are liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the Petitioner did commit an offence under Section 209, Indian Penal Code and the cognizance thereof could not be taken by the learned Magistrate without a complaint in writing by the Court. This apart, the Petitioner also committed an offence under Section 401(sic), Indian Penal Code, the Petitioner had received rent from the Respondent for the period from August, 1970 to December 1975 against receipts issued by him. He again received rent of this very period in the Court of the Rent Controller on November 30, 1977. He was then given a notice apprising him the fact that he had again recovered it unauthorisedly in the Court of Rent Controller. The Petitioner remained silent and did not return the amount. He thereby committed an offense under Section 403, Indian Penal Code.
(3.) AFTER hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is difficult to hold the complaint made by the Respondent, if true, does not prima facie disclose the commission an of offence under section 403, Indian Penal Code, on the part of the Petitioner. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.;