1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 6763--M of 2008 Date of Decision: 26.11.2009 *** Yogesh Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. Narender Kumar & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Pankaj Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Deswal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of Criminal Complaint dated 26.11.2005 (Annexure P-1), titled Narender Kumar Tyagi Vs. Vinod Jain & Ors. and also the order dated 30.8.2006 passed therein by dint of which the petitioner and two others have been summoned under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The respondent-complainant filed a complaint arraying the present petitioner and two others namely Vinod Jain, Prop. M/s Sanmati Motors and Mukesh Rana Prop. M/s Rana Motors with the allegations that on the instigation of Vinod Jain, with whom he is having good relations, the complainant sold his old motor cycle for an amount of Rs.25000/-, which amount was to be adjusted towards purchase of a new motor cycle from Rana Motors, the remaining of which was to be financed from the petitioner's financial institution. It was further alleged that though the petitioner was delivered a new motor cycle, but due to technical snag, it was returned to M/s Rana Motors through Vinod Jain and the complainant, on the assurance of Vinod Jain, kept on making payment of installments of the 2 motor cycle to the petitioner firm. It was further case of the complainant that all the three persons, in connivance with each other did not return the motor cycle to him and rather on 22.11.2005 they came to his house and tried to take away his another motor cycle and also threatened him. On these broad allegations, the private complaint was instituted wherein, after recording the preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate, vide the impugned summoning order summoned the accused persons to face trial under the aforesaid Sections. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the revisional Court below, which has been dismissed on 6.10.2007, leading to the filing of the instant quashing petition. Heard. A perusal of whole of the complaint makes it abundantly clear that the dispute whatsoever is there, is between the complainant, Vinod Jain and M/s Rana Motors. From the material available on record, it is not disputed that the petitioner firm has only arranged for the finances to the complainant for the purpose of purchase of a new motor cycle. The motor cycle in dispute, which as per the complainant himself, has not been returned by M/s Rana Motors after being replaced the same and so far as his old motor cycle is concerned, the same was sold to Vinod Jain. In whole of the transaction, it cannot be safely said that there is some sort of foul play on the part of the petitioner. The allegations, so far as petitioner is concerned, seems to be omnibus and exaggerated one and are result of frustration. It will be an abuse of process of law if the prosecution against the petitioner is permitted to continue. In the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 383, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in clear words that where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive or where the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and improbable, the Court would be within its power to quash the complaint/ FIR. The vague allegations in the complaint against petitioner and insufficient grounds to summon him warrant the interference of this Court for quashing all the proceedings against him with an objective to meet the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. In view of the discussion made above, the instant petition is allowed and consequently the impugned complaint (Annexure P-1) and 3 summoning order dated 30.8.2006 to the extent of petitioner are quashed. However, the learned trial court shall proceed with the case against remaining summoned accused, in accordance with law. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 26,2009 Jiten