S.D.BAJAJ,J - (1.) SHRI Tarlok Singh respondent No. 2 in an Advocate practising in District Court at Ludhiana. He purchased a built house from one Kuljinder Pal Singh petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is father and petitioner No., 3 is mother of petitioner No. 2 aforesaid. All the three petitioners allegedly have a vacant plot in front of their house wherein Kuljinder Pal Singh vendor of respondent No. 2 had any interest nor did respondent No. 2 acquire any interest therein through the alleged purchase. Describing the plot aforesaid as a pathway respondent No. 2 filed against the petitioners a suit for permanent injunction restraining them from raising any construction over it and therein obtained and interim injunction which was later on vacated on 6th June, 1987 when the petitioners put in appearance in that suit and disclosed factual position obtaining in the case to the learned trial Court. In appeal learned District Judge, Ludhiana, again granted the ad interim injunction and a Civil Revision bearing No. 3824 of 1987 filed by the petitioners against the order of the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, is stated to be pending in this Court. Cross civil suit filed by petitioner No. 2 is also stated to be pending in civil courts at Ludhiana.
(2.) JUST to have an edge over each other in the civil litigation admittedly pending inter parties before the civil court at Ludhiana and to pressurise the other side to refrain from pursuing it, petitioner No. 2 as also respondent No. 2 have been getting civil cases registered against each other, initially with the police and on their failure to persuade it, filing complaints in the criminal courts. Respondent No. 2 is stated to have obtained therein the concession of pre-arrest bail. Latest of such criminal cases is the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure P.1) against petitioner No. 2 and his parents arrayed as petitioners 1 (father) and 3 (mother) wherein learned trial Court is alleged to have made the summoning order Annexure P.2. All the three persons arrayed as accused therein have approached this Court for quashing the complaint and the summoning order aforesaid in Criminal Misc. No. 3832-M of the ground that no part is attributed therein to petitioner No. 3 (mother), that petitioner No. 1 is an old retired Government Officer of over 60 years who is not capable of performing the part of pulling respondent No. 2 from his long hair, assigned therein to him and that petitioner is alleged to have given fist and leg brows to respondent No. 2 in the presence of his two closed friends cited as witnesses, allegedly sitting by his side at the time of alleged occurrence. There is also intrengic evidence from the date on the judicial stamps affixed on the complaint and the contents thereof that the complaint was long drafted and typed with respondent No. 2 already; much before the alleged occurrence and plaintiff-respondent No. 2 was on the look out of a suitable opportunity to fill in the blanks therein and obtaining summoning process against all the three petitioners on a convenient date. Having satisfied himself with reference to the relevant records that the date on the judicial stamps affixed by the complainant on the complaint is thus 10th December, 1987, four days prior to the alleged occurrence viz. 14th December, 1987 and that the date of filing the complaint vi. 10th December, 1987 was also filled in by the complainant in the body of the complaint in his own hand on 15th December, 1987, when he actually filed it, I feel the alleged complaint is only the ingenuienty of the mind of complainant, who is an Advocate and was not filed in regard to the alleged occurrence.
(3.) IN Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 565 : AIR 1988 Supreme Court 709 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed :- "The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue. The Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage." ;