Des Raj and ors. vs Satish Kumar

G.S. Chahal, J. (Oral)

Des Raj and others have come to this Court in this Criminal Miscellaneous under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint under sections 420, 406, 505, 506, 148/49 Indian Penal Code, Annexure P3, pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Ferozepur and the summoning order dated 161190 passed therein.

Briefly stated, the facts are that Satish Kumar, respondent herein presented a complaint in the Court of the Magistrate, Ist Class, Ferozepur on the allegation that there being disturbance in the Punjab, Des Raj petitioner 1 (husband of complainant''s father''s sister) and his son Kul Bhushan petitioner 2 persuaded the respondent and his father to acquire some land to start some work at Sonepat and to enter into partnership with them Plot measuring 11/4 Kanals in village Jawahri, District Sonepat was jointly purchased by the respondent Kul Bhushan and the petitioner and M/s Durga Oil Flour Mills was started as partnershipfirm. The respondent had 1/2 share in the partnership firm. The firm earned profit and a sum of Rs. 1,49,817/50 as his share was still lying in deposit in the account of the said partnership firm. Instead of making payment, petitioners 1 and 2 tried to get an agreement of sate executed with respect to his share for a paltry amount of Rs. 20,000/ to which he did not agree. The petitioners were then requested to make payment. A notice was also served in this respect. On 6.12.1988, the petitioners, in presence of a Panchayat, gave out threats that either the respondent should effect a compromise or else he or his father or some other member of their family would be done to death. The matter was then reported to the Police, but no action was taken. Hence, the impugned complaint.

The complaint was, in the first instance, dismissed by the Magistrate butt, on revision, the learned Addl. Session Judge, Ferozepur ordered further inquiry in respect of the offence under section 506, IPC. The Magistrate then considered the evidence brought before him and passed the summoning order under section 506, IPC.

The learned counsel for the petitioners urges that the complaint had been filed after a lapse of one year from the date of alleged occurrence and clearly there were civil disputes pending between the parties and the prosecution had been launched in order to enforce the recovery of the amount in question which they claim to be unlawful.

The petitioners have only been summoned for offence under section 506, IPC and the summoning order is based on the allegations contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the impugned complaint and the evidence brought. The scope of section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is very limited. Once a Magistrate has exercised his discretion in summoning the accused persons on the basis of the evidence recorded, it is not open to this Court to reassess the evidence and make enquiry, whether a conviction on this order can be based or not. If any authority is needed, a reference to Smt. Nagawa v. Veeranaa Shivalingappa Konjalgi etc., AIR 1976 SC 1947 can be made. I am, thus, of the view that no case for quashing the impugned complaint is made out.

However, it, to be considered that there are civil disputes pending between the parties and if all allegations contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 at the complaint are to be considered, the occurrence took place after service of notice on 3051989, but the same is alleged to have taken place on 16121988. The petitioners also apprehend their implication in some other cases if they attend the Court at Ferozepur. To do justice between the parties, I hereby order the transfer of the case from the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate I Class, Ferozepur to Sh. J. R. Singla, Judicial Magistrate I Class, Rajpura (Patiala). The parties are directed to appear in the Court at Rajpura on the 4th day of April, 1991.

With the foregoing order and directions, the criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of.

Misc disposed of.