NARINDER KUMAR DHUPER Vs. STATE (CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to quashment of complaint filed by respondent No.2. According to the allegations in the complaint filed by respondent No.2 the complainant met the petitioner in the premises of the District Courts, Chandigarh. At that time the petitioner introduced himself to the complainant as representative of M/s M.R.F. Ceat Tyres of New Delhi and represented that he was having Agency for New Delhi for the tyres and that the complainant was dealing with many firms in Chandigarh and Jalandhar. It was further pleaded that on the representation of the petitioner that he could supply tyres at a cheaper price i.e. at the rate of Rs 11,500/- per pair F.O.R instead of Rs. 12,700/- market value, the complainant placed an order for supply of two pairs of tyres and paid Rs. 10,000/- as demanded by the petitioner, in the presence of Dayal Singh in the Canteen of Court premises.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the allegations in the complaint are totally false as the petitioner had never been to Chandigarh for the last more than 16 years. Rather it was pleaded that the present complaint has been filed at the behest of Shri G.S. Jaggi, resident of Sarojani Nagar, New Delhi, who was inimical towards the petitioner and there was litigation between them concerning shop alloted at Lodhi Colony in partnership with each other in the year 1979. Shri G.S. Jaggi took away the partnership funds and account in the year 1981 and returned to settle the account with the petitioner in the year 1987, even though the firm had come to an end in the year 1983 as per terms of the partnership deed, civil suit filed by Shri G.S. Jaggi was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on 15.12.1987 and Shri G.S. Jaggi aforesaid is facing prosecution for committing forgery.

(3.) As observed in case Pratibha Rani V/s. Suraj Kumar and another, 1985 1 RCR(Cri) 539, it is well settled by a long course of decisions of this Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section. 482 Cr. P.C. to quash an F.I.R. or a complaint the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same perse. It has to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations.