Dharm Pal vs Walaiti Lal

R.L. Anand, J.

Learned counsel for the respondent states that he does not want to file reply and he is ready for arguments.

Heard.

The relief claimed in the present petition by Dharam Pal is for the quashment of complaint dated 22.2.1996, Annexure P.2 and the summoning order Annexure P.3 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur.

Ms. Mann, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her contention has drawn my attention to the Annexure P.1, a letter written by the petitioner to respondent Walaiti Lal. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties I would like to reproduce the contents of this letter Annexure P.1 as follows :

"Shri Waliti Lal Ji, I am sorry to inform you that a number of times I have asked you and sent to your place persons Shri Ajit and Santokh Raj, but you have avoided it and till today you have not returned the electric motor. You have taken this motor before the retirement i.e. on 31.3.1995 to your house at your own will for personal use at home. But this is an official property of the school, it is needed for School, so I am informing you in writing to please return the motor to the school as soon as possible otherwise the cost of the electric motor, which is prevalent as today, will be deducted from your payment due towards the gratuity. For the delayed payment of your gratuity this will be one of the reason. The Govt. motor may immediately be deposited in the school so that your amount of gratuity may be released at the earliest. In case you will not deposit the electric motor, with the school, in that event I will have to take further action. This is for your information."

A perusal of the above letter would show that no ingredients of Section 500 IPC are made out. Only an information was sought from the respondent by the petitioner with regard to the electric motor. It cannot be remotely inferred from this letter that the petitioner Dharam Pal ever intended to defame the respondent. Reasonable bona fide inquiries and even a bona fide demand made by a person cannot equate with scandalous allegations much less defamatory in character. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has drawn my attention to Para No. 4 of the complaint dated 22.2.1996 and submitted that a perusal of the averments made in Para No. 4 of the complaint, prima facie constitute offence under section 500 IPC and this Court should be slow in 3 invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. In support of his contention the leaned counsel for the respondent has relied upon 1995(1) RCR 622 A.E. Rani v. S.R. Sharma, where the Hon''ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold while interpreting the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. that at the time summoning the accused it is not necessary for the Court to consider whether the compliant was likely to be upheld or not. I do not agree with the submission raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. There is no dispute or quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Equally is the law settled in the celebrating judgment of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, that if the court finds that the allegations of the complaint even taken on its face value are absurd and do not fall within the definition of offence committed, the complainant under the garb of such provisions cannot be permitted to drag his opponents in a Court of law. This Court shares its responsibility that while invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. It should be slow and this power should be used sparingly and in rarest of the rare case. But once a citizen is being dragged by a litigant in order to wreak his vengeance the law courts would be the first person to protect the rights of such an individual person. Present is a case where respondent Walaiti Lal is trying to drag the petitioner in a Court of law without any valid basis. Under these circumstances, the present petition is hereby allowed by exercising the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. and it is hereby ordered that the complaint and summoning orders Annexures P.2 and P.3 are hereby quashed. Directions are given to the trial Court not to proceed with the complaint against the petitioner. No order as to costs.