AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.D. Agarwala, J.—This is an application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. There is a dispute between the applicants and Deo Nath Singh, opposite party No. 2, in regard to consolidation of holdings and the said dispute is pending in this Court, in Civil Misc. Writ No. 3968 of 1980. On 2nd November, 1979, the applicants lodged a First Information Report under Sections 352, 504 and 506, IPC. After the writ petition was filed, the opposite party No. 2 (sic) an interim stay order from this Court. On 10th October, 1980, the (sic) moved an application for vacating the ex-parte stay order. In the said (sic) it was further stated that criminal proceedings be taken against the (sic) party No. 2, as he had annexed in the writ petition a forged resolution of Gaon Sabha.
On 6th December, 1980, a First Information Report was lodge by the opposite party No. 2 u/s 392, IPC. A copy of the sal report has been annexed as Annexure ''II'' to the affidavit filed in support of this application.
On 9th January, 1981, the High Court after hearing the parties, vacated the stay order passed in favour of the opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, on 24th January, 1981, the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, u/s 396/397, IPC against the applicants. It may be stated here that this complaint, which was filed on 24th January, 1981, was in relation to the same incident which is alleged to have taken place on 6th December, 1980, in respect of which a First Information Report had been filed earlier. On the basis of the said complaint, the Special Judicial Magistrate summoned the applicants. The complaint has been registered as Case No. 37 of 1981, Deo Nath Singh v. Sita Ram. The applicants, after they received the summons from the Special Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, filed the present application for quashing the proceedings in the said case.
4 It is not disputed that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 6th December, 1980. Initially, the opposite party No. 2 filed a First Information Report u/s 392, IPC. In respect of the same incident, now a complaint has been filed on 24th January, 1981, more than one month after the incident, under Sections 395/396, IPC.
I have examined the First Information Report a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure ''II'' to the affidavit filed in support of the present application, aswell as the complaint filed on 24th January, 1981. There is great discrepancy between the things sought to have been taken away by the applicants, both in the First Information Report dated 6th December, 1980, and the complaint dated 24th January, 1981. On a reading of the complaint, it is apparent that this complaint had been filed as a counter blast to harass the applicants as the High Court had vacated the stay order on 9th January, 1981. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others, it has been laid down that where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, it would amount to a case where the proceedings would be liable to be quashed u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.
I have examined the complaint. The allegations made in the complaint are inherently improbable. It cannot possibly be believed that such an incident, as stated in the complaint, did ever occur. It is clear from a reading of the complaint that it has been manufactured for the purpose of harassing the applicants and with no other motive. It is nothing, but an abuse of the process of the Court. The allegations in the complaint are not only improbable, but, on the face of it, they appeared to be absurd. My opinion finds support from one patent fact that on 6th December, 1980, when the First Information Report was lodged, it was lodged u/s 392, IPC and a complaint is being lodged after 1-1/2 months when the opposite party No. 2 lost in the High Court under Sections 395/396, IPC. In this complaint, a list of items, which are alleged to have been taken away by the applicants, have been mentioned. The first item mentioned is a gun No. 28668. There is no mention of the gun at all in the First Information Report, which was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 6th December, 1980.
In the result, I allow the application and quash the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 37 of 1981, Deo Nath v. Sita Ram and Ors., pending in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.