Briefly the facts are that the complainant one Suresh Chand had lodged a report at P.S. Preet Vihar, Delhi at about 1100 p.m. on 17/11/94 where this report was registered as DD No. 20A. He has alleged that he along with his two co-villagers Satbir and Rakesh travelled in a bus after visiting the then Agriculture Minister, and alighted from the bus at Shakarpur Chowk and while going to ALT Ghaziabad Bus stop near Coffee Home to catch a bus to Ghaziabad for going to river Ganges, a girl named Aarti Hejmadi hit him from behind with an iron rod, two other persons accompanying her also gave beating to him with iron rods.When his two companions came to resuce him, she had fired at him but the bullet passed over his head.Due to fear of shooting, his two companions went away.It was also alleged that at that time Aarti had told him that "he had slapped me in the bus, to take revenge she would kill him and had also abused him.In the crowded bus Arti Hejmadi d/o P. Hejmadi who was claiming herself to be from Lady Hardinge Medical College.She was standing in the crowded bus and was holding the overhead rod and she said that you, (Suresh Chand) had put your hand on her hand by which she was holding the rod.ORDER J.B. Goel, J.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') and Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks for setting aside of summoning order dated 17.2.1996 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma and for quashing of FIR No. 72/95 registered at P.S. Preet Vihar, Delhi under Sections 307/323/34 IPC.Some motorists came there and then the said girl went away on a motorcycle along with her two accomplices.After registration of the DD a copy of it was entrusted to ASI Sompal Singh who made inquiries and recorded statements of several persons from the neighbourhood area, but he did not find any truth or substance in the report and case was not registered.However, it appears that the complainant pursued the matter further with higher police officers and then on 6.4.1995 a case FIR No. 72/95 under Sections 307/323/34 IPC was registered.During investigation some more statements from neighbouring area and also of the alleged two companions of the complainant were recorded.The petitioner had also given a written reply dated 28.5.1995 that she was on duty at Safdarjung Hospital at the relevant time supported by the certificate from the doctor Incharge of her Department.The prior incident in which complainant had misbehaved with the petitioner in a bus and in which he was arrested was also taken notice of and a report was submitted to the Magistrate suggesting that there was no truth in the complaint, it was false and bogus and recommending to close the matter.The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the aforesaid proceedings, being misconceived and mala fide.The proceedings before the trial court have been stayed by this Court.The complainant was imp leaded as respondent No. 2 in these proceedings.Notice was served upon him but he did not put in appearance.I have heard Shri Mohit Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Seema Gulati for the State.Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the police had investigated the case, collected the relevant material and on the basis of such material had recommended that the complaint was false and no case is made out but the learned M.M. has acted illegally and with material irregularity in taking cognizance and summoning the petitioner.He has relied on the material collected by the IO, the background to the case and also certain case law.Whereas learned counsel for the State has contended that the petitioner should have approached the Court concerned before coming to this Court and if she feels that no case is made out she could urge the same before the Trial court instead of coming to this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of this Court.It has a previous history as noticed hereinafter.Report lodged by the complainant at 11.00 p.m. on 17.11.1994 on which DD No. 20A was recorded (Annexure-B is its English translation filed with the Petition) reads as under :-"At 11.00 p.m. registered and the person mentioned in column No. 2 has made his statement that on 9.6.93 I was travelling in a D.T.C. Bus.At this she punched her elbow into my stomach on which I told that girl to be a misbehaved person.She slapped me, on which I also slapped her.She got the case reported at the Police Station Parliament Street under Section 506 IPC and I was taken into custody.I was acquitted from the case by the Magistrate at the Patiala House Courts.On 19.3.94 that girl had fired on me at the Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg for which I had lodged an FIR at P.S. Mandir Marg, in that case the police officials did not do anything and instead hushed up the case.Today I along with two farmers of my village namely Satbir s/o Jouhari and Rakesh s/o Shiv Charan went to meet Agricultural Minister Sh.Balram Jakhar in relation to the paved passages for the fields of the farmers.Later on return I was going along with these two persons for a dip at the Ganges.After alighting from the bus at Shakarpur Chowk, I was going towards Coffee Home ALT Bus stop to catch a bus to go to ALT Ghaziabad.A girl hit me by the iron rod on my back, and two other persons who were accompanying this girl also beat me with iron rod.When the two persons who were accompanying me tried to rescue me, Arti Hejmadi fired at me from behind, the bullet passed over my head.Out of fear from the shooting, my companions left the spot in order to save their lives.After that Arti told me "You had slapped me in the bus, I will take my revenge by taking your life" and further added "I will kill you today", and abused me.After that when 2-4 motorists came towards us, this girl left the spot on the motorcycle alongwith the two boys.Even after waiting for a long time when the police did not reach, I have come to the police station to lodge the report.SI Sompal Singh had made inquiries in the matter.He has recorded the statements of several persons from neighbouring area on 18.11.1994 and 22.11.1994 who had stated that no such incident had at all taken place at the aforesaid time and place.The complainant was also medically examined at SDM Hospital, Shahdara on 17.11.1994 vide MLC No. 4830/94 (C-72043) and the Doctor had noticed the following injuries :.ls1 "1 Contusion injury (L) Middle of leg2. Lacerated Injury overC/o loosening of cipper (L) med.incisor tooth.However, clinically no signs of bleeding locally.No fracture clinically.The injuries were opined to be simple.If there was pre-planned attack with iron rods by three persons and firearm was actually used, the nature and extent of injuries perhaps would have been more serious.These injuries are not such which could not have been self inflicted or manipulated to create false evidence.After the FIR was registered on 6.4.1995 statements of two companions of the complainant Satbir and Rakesh were recorded who have not supported the complainant in material respects and have made statements at variance to his statement.Statement of some more persons from the neighbouring areas were also recorded who have also denied that any such occurrence had taken place.The matter is to be seen in the light of this legal position.The petitioner had alleged that at the time of occurrence his two co-villagers Satbir and Rakesh were with him."About 4-5 months back I alongwith Suresh and Satbir who are my co-villagers had gone to meet the Agriculture Minister, Shri Balram Jakhar but the Minister did not meet and his P.A. has met at about 3.00 p.m. and after meeting him we got a bus at about 3.05 p.m. and got down from the bus at about 3.15 p.m. at Shakarpur Chowk and proceeded to catch a bus for going to Ghaziabad and at about 3.20 p.m. when we reached near Coffee Home two persons and a girl came on a motor cycle.All the three were armed with Iron rods and all the three gave blows with series on Suresh Chand.I and Satbir tried to rescue him but the said girl fired a shot and I and Satbir ran away and I do not know what happened thereafter and I alongwith Satbir went to Ghaziabad and then reached Anup Shahr at about 8.00 p.m. and Suresh had met us 15/20 days thereafter in the village."Satbir in his statement recorded on 18.4.95 has stated as follows, so far is relevant (English translation) :-"I am agriculturist and in November 1994 I alongwith Suresh Chand Sharma and another person whose name he did not know had gone to meet the Agriculture Minister and took a DTC bus in which we reached at about 5.00 p.m. at Shakarpur Chowk.We had gone some distance when two boys alongwith a girl came on a motorcycle.One of the two boys got down from his motorcycle and started giving beatings to Suresh Chand with saria when I and my companion tried to rescue him the other boy fired a shot and on this shooting we separated from Suresh who had fallen down.The two boys alongwith that girl went away.We brought Suresh to Jagatpuri, Shahdara at the house of one Balbir Dahiya in a bus upto Shahdara and then in a cycle rickshaw.Suresh was left there and I and Rakesh went to Anup Shahr to take a dip in the Ganga and reached there at about 9.00 p.m. The girl who was accompanying the aforesaid two boys did nothing nor she had uttered any words.I could not recognise that girl but I can identify the two boys".Both these witnesses have not supported the complainant on material aspects including the time of occurrence.According to Rakesh they had got down from the bus at Shakarpur Chowk at about 3.15 p.m. and obviously the occurrence according to him would have taken place at about that time.Satbir on the other hand had stated that they had reached there at about 5.00 p.m. In the complaint the time of occurrence is not mentioned but in subsequent statement under Section 161 of the Code of the complainant, the time of occurrence stated is 8.00 p.m. On his report DD No. 20A was recorded at 11.00 p.m. There is great variance in these three statements about the time of occurrence.Rakesh in his statement has stated that the girl and her two companions were armed with iron rods (saria) and all the three had given saria blows to Suresh Sharma and the said girl had fired a shot at Suresh.Satbir has stated that one of the two boys had given saria blows to Suresh Sharma while the other boy had fired.He does not assign any overt act to the petitioner and does not support the other two.He has further stated that he, Rakesh and Suresh had gone to the house of one Balbir in Jagatpuri, Shahdara and left Suresh there.Both Suresh and Rakesh do not corroborate him that they had gone to the house of Balbir Dahiya in Jagatpuri.These are not minor variations but major contradictions which make their statements untruthful and untrustworthy.Complainant Suresh Chand in his statement under Section 161 dated 11.4.1995 has admitted that at the complaint of Arti Hejmadi, a FIR No. 206/93 under Section 509 was registered at P.S. Parliament Street regarding his alleged behaviour while both were travelling in a bus and in that case he remained in jail for over two months, at that time he had written letters to Arti Hejmadi from jail requesting her to withdraw her complaint and to get him released to enable him to attend the marriage of his sister which she did not agree.He had earlier also lodged a complaint against her on 19.3.94 at P.S. Mandir Marg against her about shooting by her.That complaint was also found baseless and the matter was dropped.The learned M.M. has given the following reasons while taking cognizance:"A notice was issued to the complainant who appeared in person and has opposed the request for cancellation of the case.I have heard the complainant, Ld. APP and the IO and have gone through the record.The learned Magistrate has not only misread the statements of the complainant and his two witnesses, he has completely ignored the material contradictions.The circumstances appearing on the record show that the complaint is wholly misconceived, for oblique motives, maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wrecking the vengeance on the petitioner and with a view to spite her due to personal grudge and mala fides and the same ought not to have been allowed to perpetuate the injustice on the petitioner.

Cited provisions: Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code