IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M- 14141 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 22.5.2009 Sushil Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Anr. .... Respondents. Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S.Sidhu, Addl.A.G, Punjab. Mr. H.P.S.Ghuman, Advocate, for respondent No.2. M.M.S.BEDI. (J) (Oral) Petitioner seeks the quashing of summoning order Annexure P-2 and criminal complaint Annexure P-1 Balwinder Singh Vs. Sushil Kumar & Ors., qua him on the ground that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case after he having been found innocent by the police in FIRNo. 87 dated 21.6.2006, under Sections 307, 324, 323, 34 and 120-B IPC. A perusal of the FIR registered at the instance of Balwinder Kumar complainant reveals that no overt act had been attributed to him in the inncident of 19.6.2006 when Balwinder Kumar was allegedly attacked by three unidentified persons. The complainant had sought a direction from the High Court by filing the criminal miscellaneous application No. 59492 – M of 2006 seeking a direction to the police to present a challan against the petitioner and others. In the petition also no specific over act has been attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention in 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 Crl. Misc. No. M- 14141 of 2008 -2- 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 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 & Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, which on the face of it are improbable suffering from the voice of mala fide. Continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in such circumstances is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. In view of above circumstances, the petition is allowed. The criminal complaint and the summoning order against the petitioner Sushil Kumar are quashed. Nothing said in this order will effect the rights of the complainant in the pending complaint. Proceedings against the other accused can continue in accordance with law. May 22, 2009 (M.M.S.Bedi) tripti Judge