Crl.Misc.No.M- 18620 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 18620 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.7.2010 Rajinder Kumar Sharma and another ......Petitioners Versus Balwinder Kumar .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Kuldeep Sanwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Vijay Rana, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing criminal complaint case No.196/07 titled as Balwinder Kumar vs. Sushil Kumar and others (Annexure P-1) pending before the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Phillaur; summoning order dated 15.4.2008 (Annexure P-2) and the proceedings consequent thereto. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that co- accused Sushil Kumar, who was similarly situated as the petitioners, had filed a petition seeking quashing of the FIR and the said petition Crl.Misc.No.M- 18620 of 2009 (O&M) 2 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 22.5.2009 (Annexure P-5). The other accused, who were facing the trial in a State case, had since been acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 5.2.2010 as the material witnesses had failed to support the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the respondent has very fairly not controverted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. The complaint was filed by Balwinder Kumar-respondent against the petitioners and ten others. In the said complaint, the summoning order was passed against the petitioners and Sushil Kumar by the trial Court on 15.4.2008. The summoning order against the other accused was not passed as they were already facing criminal proceedings in the State case. In the petition seeking quashing of the complaint and summoning order by co-accused Sushil Kumar, this Court has held as under:- “ Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the allegations of private complaint (Annexure P-1) in which for the first time after cancellation of FIR, name of the petitioner, to have attacked the complainant has been mentioned. No other specific act has been attributed to the petitioner. In view of said facts, it is apparent that the petitioner has been involved in the case on account of Crl.Misc.No.M- 18620 of 2009 (O&M) 3 vindictiveness. The petitioner happens to be the husband of present Sarpanch, whereas, the complainant is admittedly son of Ex-Sarpanch. The facts of the present case appear to fall in parameters of State of Haryana and others vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, which on the face of it are improbable suffering from the voice of malafide. Continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in such circumstances is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court.” Keeping in view the facts that the complaint and the summoning order qua co-accused Sushil Kumar, who was similarly situated as the petitioner, have been quashed by this Court and the other accused, who were facing the trial in a State case, have been acquitted by the trial Court, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned complaint as well as the impugned summoning order against the petitioners are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 09, 2010 anita