Suraj Prakash Sood vs State of U.P.& Ors.

G.P Mathur, J.—Suraj Prakash Sood has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing Criminal Complaint No. 60 of 1986 (Raj Narain Singh v. Suraj Prakash Sood and others) which is pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur, District Varanasi. Subsequently an application was moved by the petitioner on 19.11.1990 wherein a prayer has been made to quash the orders passed in the aforesaid criminal case by which the petitioner was summoned and warrant was also issued against him.

Respondent No. 3, Raj Narain Singh, filed a criminal complaint on 20.1.86 in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Gayanpur, Varanasi, against six accused including the petitioner Suraj Prakash Sood and one Hanuman Prasad Baranwal praying that the accused be summoned and be tried for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the accused No. 1 Suraj Prakash Sood (Petitioner) carries on the business of manufacturing and selling dying machines in Ludhiana and an agreement had been executed by accused No. 1 in favour of the complaint wherein he had agreed that he will pay ten per cent commission to the complainant on the sales of the drying machines. Under the aforesaid agreement a sum of Rs. 4,46,000/. was due to the complainant from accused No. 1 regarding which correspondence between the parties had taken place. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 also carry on the business of dying through machines and they had purchased machines from accused No. 1 and thus they were associated and helpers of accused No. 1. They also owed some money to accused No. 1 on 10.5.85 the accused called a panchayat at the house of Rudra Kumar Rai and later on at the house of Lalta Prasad Yadav and asked the complainant to be present there. The accused had further assured the complainant that either he would be paid the amount due to him or accused Nos. 2 to 5 will become responsible for payment thereof, after making some reduction. The Panchayat continued for two three hours but no settlement could take place and the complainant returned to his house. The case of the complainant further is that at about 11.00 p.m. the accused came to his house and started talking to him. Suddenly all the accused entered the complainant''s house with criminal intention and told him that he should give a receipt in writing to the effect that he had received the entire amount due from Suraj Prakash Sood otherwise he would be killed. They further threatened that they would kidnap the only son of the complainant and commit his murder. The complainant raised an alarm on which F.R. Qureshi and some other persons came on the spot and then the accused left the place after giving him threat of his life. The complainant went to the police station to lodge the report but as the accused one rich person and the local police was acting in league with them, the first information report was not taken down. The complainant made reports to higher authorities and on 15.12.1985 a first information report under Section 506 I.P.C. was taken down.

The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant Raj Narain Singh under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 11.2.1986 and the statements of Ekhlaq Ahmad and F.R. Qureshi under Section 202 Cr.P.C. passed an order on 5.3.1986 summoning the accused Nos. 1 to 5 under Sections 452 and 506I.P.C. The present petition has been filed in this Court on 4.9.1987 for quashing the complaint and the summoning order as well as the warrant issued against the petitioner. The petition was admitted on 8.9.1987 and further proceedings before the trial court were stayed.

Shri S.S. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the dispute between the parties was purely of civil nature regarding alleged demand of money by the complainant. The complainant had initiated proceedings for arbitration and the arbitrator has also given any award in favour of the complainant. The criminal complaint had been filed with ulterior motive in order to put pressure upon the petitioner as the complainant had not been able to obtain money from the petitioner. It is also urged that the allegations in the complaint were absolutely as no such incident had taken place which will be evident from the fact that in the notice issued by the arbitrator or in the award there is no whisper of the alleged incident. Learned counsel further submitted that the complaint was highly belated inasmuch as the incident is alleged to have taken place on 10.5.85 but the first information report was lodged on 15.12.85 after nearly seven months and the complaint was filed even later on 20.1.86. The inordinate delay in lodging the first information report and in the filing of complaint showed that the prosecution case was absolutely false and the proceedings initiated by the complainant were an abuse of the process of the Court.

Shri Raj Narain Singh, respondent No. 3, has appeared in person and has submitted that the incident as mentioned in the complaint did take place and the same was not false in any manner; that the complaint had not been filed in order to put pressure on the petitioner or for realising his dues but the same had been filed as the accused had threatened to kill him as well as his son. He also submitted that the accused had filed a revision against the summoning order dated 5.3.86 which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, and thereafter the accused had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the High Court which was also dismissed and in these circumstances the present petition is not maintainable. The complainant has also filed a counter affidavit in reply to the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition.

The order sheet shows that the petition was heard on 25.11.88 by Hon''ble G. Malviya, J. When his Lordship directed that the record of Crl. Misc. Application No. 12806 of 1986 be summoned and the same be placed alongwith the record of the present case. Hanuman Prasad Baranwal has been arrayed as accused No. 6 in the complaint dated 20.1.86 filed by the complainant. The record of Crl. Misc. Petition No. 12806 of 1986 shows that he filed Crl. Revision. 40 of 1986 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi, for quashing the summoning order dated 5.3.1986 passed by the learned Magistrate. This revision was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, on 17.9.86. The present petitioner Suraj Prakash Sood was a party in the revision filed by Hanuman Prasad Baranwal. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the following finding in his judgment:

".......In the instant case the statement of the complainant Raj Narain Singh has been recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has recorded the statements of Ekhlakh Ahmad P.W. 1 and Fazlur Rahman Qureshi P.W. 2 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. besides filing a number of documents which show a prima facie case for summoning those accused persons including the revisionists for the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 506 I.P.C. under these circumstances, I find no illegality in the order under revision summoning the accused persons Bharat Prasad Baranwal, Vinod Prasad, Suraj Prasad Sood, Shiv Chandra Baranwal and revisionists Hanuman Prasad Baranwal for the offence punishable under Sections 552 and 506 I.P.C.

The order under revision, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court."

After the dismissal of the revision, Hanuman Prasad Baranwal filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in this court which was registered as Crl. Misc, Application No. 12806 of 1986. In this petition Raj Narain Singh was impleaded as sole respondent. Paragraph 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition reads as follows:

"That on the facts stated above it is expedient in the interests of justice that the above petition may be allowed and the complaint filed by Raj Narain Singh under Sections 452/506 I.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate Gyanpur, district Varanasi, against the petitioner, Bharat Prasad Baranwal, Vinod Prasad and Suraj Prakash Sood may be quashed and the orders dated 5.3.86 of Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur, and that of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, Varanasi dated 17.9.86 may be set aside.............."

In the petition also a similar prayer was made for quashing of the complaint against the petitioner Haauman Prasad Baranwal, Bharat Prasad Baranwal, Vinod Prasad and Suraj Prakash. Notice of this petition was issued to the complainanant Raj Narain Singh on 17.10.86 and further proceedings were stayed. The complaint Raj Narain Singh filed a counteraffidavit and opposed the petition. Ultimately the petition came up for consideration before Hon''ble B. L.Yadav, J. on 20.2.1987 when his Lordship passed the following order:

"This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is dismissed as not pressed as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner. The stay order dated 17.10.86 and 30.1.87 are discharged".

Thus it is clear that the summoning order dated 5.3.86 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gyanpur, was challenged by the accused before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by filing a revision and in the said revision the present petitioner Suraj Prakash Sood was a party. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge recorded a finding that there was no illegality in the summoning order passed against the accused persons including the present petitioner Suraj Prakash Sood and dismissed the revision by his order dated 17.9.86. The aforesaid order dated 17.9.86 of the Additional Sessions Judge was again challenged by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by one of the accused namely, Hanuman Prasad Baranwal, but the said petition was also dismissed by this court. It is true that the petition was got dismissed as not presssed by the petitioner himself but the fact remains that the petition was dismissed and the order dated 17.9.86 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was upheld. In the present petition filed by Suraj Prakash Sood no reference is made to the filing of the Criminal Revision No. 40 of 1986 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, against the summoning order dated 5.3.1986 nor any reference is made to the filing of the 482 Cr.P.C. petition in this Court vide Crl. Misc. Application No. 12806 of 1986. These facts have been deliberately concealed in the present petition. The relief sought by the accused in Crl. Revision No. 40 of 1986 was to the effect that the summoning order be quashed. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision on the finding that there was no illegality in the summoning order passed against all the accused including the present petitioner Suraj Prakash Sood. In Crl. Misc. Application No. 12806 of 1986 a prayer was made to quash the complaint against the accused persons including Suraj Prakash Sood and this petition was also dismissed by this Court on 20.2.87. In these circumstances the second petition filed by the petitioner Suraj Prakash Sood seeking the same relief is not maintainable. The earlier petition having been dismissed by this Court no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present petition.

So far as the merits of the case is concerned it may be noted that the allegations in the complaint do not at all relate to any civil dispute. The allegation of the complainant is that on account of his dues not having been paid by the petitioner a panchayat was held on 10.5.1985 but no settlement could take place and subsequently in the night at about 11.00 p.m. the accused came to his house and threatened the complainant to give a receipt showing that he had received the entire dues from the petitioner otherwise he would be killed. The accused also threatened that they would kidnap the only son of the complainant and kill him. It is crystal clear that this incident is altogether separate and distinct incident and it does not show any civil dispute. The question as to whether such an incident took place or not cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as it is a matter regarding appraisal of evidence which may be adduced by the parties. It is true that according to the complainant''s case the incident took place in the night of 10.5.85 and the first information report of the incident was lodged after nearly seven months on 15.12.85 and the complaint was filed still later on 20.1.86. As to what is the effect of this delay can only be examined by the trial court. The complaint cannot be quashed in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely on the ground that the F.I.R. had been filed after eight months of the happening of the incident.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there was no evidence on record to justify the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate. The statements of Raj Narain Singh complainant and F.R. Qureshi witness and the copy of the summoning order dated 5.3.1986 have not been filed alongwith the petition. When the arguments in the petition. Were heard on 12.11.90 this fact was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner and on his request the case was adjourned to 19.11.1990. On 19.11.90 the petitioner filed an application for amending the petition supported with an affidavit. Alongwith the affidavit copy of the order sheet was filed which also contains the order dated 5.3.86 passed by the learned Magistrate by which the accused were summoned. The copies of the statements of complainant, Raj Narain Singh and witness F.R. Qureshi have not been filed. In these circumstances it is not possible to examine the contention advanced by the learned counsel as the relevant material has not been placed on the record.

This court can quash the proceedings of a criminal case only if the complaint disclosed commission of no offence. In Municipal Corporation, Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohatgi, AIR 1983 SC 47 the Supreme Court observed as follows:

"Proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words the test is that taking the allegations of the complaint as they are without adding or substracting anything if no offence is made out then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482."

Applying the above test, it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose commission of an offence. Therefore in my opinion, no case for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been made out.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the complainant Raj Narain Singh has a habit of making absolutely false allegations. He drew the attention of the court to certain letters which were sent by the complainant to him, copies of which have been filed as annexures to the rejoinder affidavit. It is true that the complainant has used threatening and wholly uncalled for language while sending letters to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The complainant had no business to send letters to the counsel appearing for the petitioner. However, it it again a matter of appreciation of evidence. It will be open to the accused to show to the trial court that the complainant has been making false allegations against every body and the trial court will draw appropriate inference from the same. The complaint cannot be quashed on this ground in exercise of the power conferred by Section 482 Cr.P.C.

In the end I must observe that complainant Raj Narain Singh has used highly derogatory language against several Hon''ble Judges of this Court. He appears to be in the habit of sending large number of applications and letters were very objectionable language has been used. The record also shows that he filed S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 59 and 60 of 1989 in the Hon''ble Supreme Court for transferring the petition which was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 4.8.1989. The complainant had used objectionable language in the petition which will be evidents from the order passed by the Hon''ble The Supreme Court which is quoted below:

"As the petitioner begs to withdraw the transfer petitions and also tenders unqualified apology for the statements made in paragraph 4 of the affidavits as well as in the transfer petitions the transfer petitions are dismissed as withdrawn and the apology accepted.........."

In the normal course I would have issued notice of contempt of court to the complainant Raj Narain Singh. However, as he has argued his case in person and seems to be very much emotionally involved with his case, I am not issuing any notice of contempt. He is seriously warned to use proper language while moving applications or filing affidavits in a court of law.

This petition is accordingly dismissed. The stay order dated 8.9.1987 is vacated.

Petitions dismissed.