Crl.M. No.47634 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CRM M No.47634 of 2007 Date of Decision: March 03, 2009 Bir Singh and another ...........Petitioners Versus Smt.Prem Devi ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.J.V.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent. ** Sabina, J. Petitioners-Bir Singh Rao and Anuj Yadav have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C' for short) seeking quashing of complaint bering No. 184 of 2006 under Sections 323, 354, 452, 506,34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC' for short), (Annexure P1) and consequent summoning order dated 15.9.2006 , (Annexure P2). Respondent- Prem Devi has filed the complaint in question (Annexure P1) alleging that her husband had died in the year 1975 in road side accident. Bir Singh Rao and Matadin Yadav and her late husband were having a partnership deed regarding a petrol pump (Rajasthan Rajpath Filling Station) Rajoukri, New Delhi. It was agreed that the profits from the said petrol pump would be equally shared by all the three partners. Petitioner No.1 by taking the respondent in confidence fraudulently took her signatures and thumb impressions on more than 50 blank papers and about Crl.M. No.47634 of 2007 2 100 blank affidavits representing that the properties in the name of her husband would be transferred in her name. Upto July,2005, petitioner No.1 and his partner- Matadin Yadav continued paying income out of the petrol pump to the respondent but thereafter, they stopped doing so. In January 2006, respondent raised a demand of her share from petitioner No.1 and Matadin Yadav. On 17.5.2006, petitioner No.1 made a phone call to the respondent and told her that she along with her son had been removed from factory Imperial Malt Private Ltd., Ghsola, Gurgaon and now, they have no share in that. Respondent was threatened that in case, they took any legal action, then she along with her son would be killed just like Ranbir Singh. On 19.5.2006, respondent was alone at home and at about 9.00 P.M., petitioner No.1 came inside her house, while petitioner No.2 sat in the car outside, and started abusing her and did some obscene actions. She picked up a knife from the kitchen and threatened petitioner No.1 and on this account, he left the spot. Her son made a complaint on the next day to Senior Superintendent of Police Gurgaon but no action had been taken on the same. On 22.5.2006 at about 11.00 P.M., some body knocked at her gate and when she went outside, she found two boys came out from a black coloured car and threatened her either to withdraw her complaint or otherwise she would be shot. On the basis of the said complaint, after recording the preliminary evidence, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Gurgaon summoned the petitioners to face the trial vide order dated 15.9.2006 (Annexure P2). Hence, the present Misc. petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the husband of the respondent had died in the year 1975, whereas, the Crl.M. No.47634 of 2007 3 partnership deed with regard to the petrol pump in question came into existence on 22.3.1983. Hence, husband of respondent could not be a partner in the said petrol pump. The allegations levelled in the complaint (Annexure P1) were not mentioned in the complaint filed by the son of the respondent (Annexure P3) on the next day of the occurrence. Hence, the allegations levelled in the complaint (Annexure P1) had been concocted after a gap of one week. The complaint had been filed with a view to compel the petitioners to give property to the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that FIR No.113 dated 28.6.2006 registered at Police Station Pataudi, Gurgaon under Sections 323, 342, 392, 506, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act registered at the instance of son of the respondent was investigated and was found to be false and cancellation report was submitted in the concerned Court. In these circumstances, complaint (Annexure P1) and summoning order (Annexure P2) are liable to be quashed being abuse of process of Court. The respondent being closely related to the petitioners has filed the claim to settle her personal grudge. Today,nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent although the name of the counsel for the respondent was got duly reflected in the cause list. There is force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the complaint moved by son of respondent (Annexure P3) on 20.5.2006 reveals that the alleged incident of 19.5.2006 is not reflected in the same. Complaint made to Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon,( Annexure P3) is the first version given by respondent party and hence, the fact that in the said complaint the incident dated Crl.M. No.47634 of 2007 4 19.5.2006 is not mentioned leads to the inference that the present complaint has been filed after due deliberations and consultations and by not giving the true position. Parties are closely related to each other. It has been held by the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal 1992 AIR SC 608 that where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused or where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, then the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed by the High Court exercising powers under Article 226 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Admittedly, husband of the respondent had died in the year 1975. As per the petitioners, the partnership deed regarding the petrol pump in question was executed on 22.3.1983 after about 8 years of the demise of Ranbir Singh, husband of the respondent-Prem Devi. In these circumstances, Ranbir Singh could not have been partner of he partnership in question. Keeping in view the factual matrix of this case, this petition is allowed. Complaint (Annexure P1) and summoning order (Annexure P2) are hereby quashed. (Sabina) Judge March 03, 2009 arya