IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 31195-M of 2004 Date of decision: 29th March, 2010 Harjinder Singh … Petitioner Versus Rajender Bhardwaj … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint dated 9th January, 1998 filed by the respondent in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Ambala under Sections 323, 327, 342, 352, 451, 452, 506 and 149 IPC. This Court, on July 15, 2004, while issuing notice, had passed the following order: “Mr.Sharma contends that out of seven accused arrayed in the complaint, Raghubir Singh accused No.1 has not appeared before the Court till date. Then contends that personal appearance of accused No.3 Surinder Singh who is father of the petitioner has already been exempted by the trial Court. Then contends that accused No.4, 5, 6, and 7 namely Rattan Parkash, Atul, Vijay Sehgal and Ved Parkash have already knocked the doors of this Court vide Criminal Misc. No. 32656-M of 1999 in which vide order dated 22.1.2001, while admitting the said petition, further proceedings qua them have already been stayed by this Court. Then contends that the case of the present petitioner is also at par with Rattan Parkash and others. Notice. Further proceedings qua the petitioner is also stayed. Criminal Misc. No.31195-M of 2004 The present petition shall be taken up along with Criminal Misc. No. 32656-M of 1999.” The file of Criminal Misc. No. 32656-M of 1999 has been requisitioned from the Registry. On 15th February, 2006, this Court had disposed of Criminal Misc. No. 32656-M of 1999 by passing the following order: “This petition has been filed for quashing of a complaint filed by the respondent. The respondent was employed as a Stringer/part-time correspondent on 29.3.1994 but his services were terminated on 22.7.1996. Thereafter, on account of a news item published in the Tribune dated 3.10.1996 that stay had been granted against the respondent, which was later on contradicted by news item dated 8.10.1996, the respondent initiated complaint for defamation on 23.10.1996 and also initiated proceedings for contempt, which were both dismissed. It was held that publishing of the news item was not deliberate nor any contempt had been committed. The respondent also filed a complaint Annexure P.13 on 9.1.1998 alleging that on 21.12.1997 at 12 A.M., the complainant was attacked by the petitioners and certain injuries were caused. The petitioners have been summoned. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent has filed the complaint on account of his having been terminated from service and his earlier complaint and contempt proceedings were found to be without substance and allegation in the complaint is false. There is no tangible injury and as per MLR, he only complained of pain. Since the proceedings are malafide, the same are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the respondent received injuries and was assaulted and he should have an opportunity to lead evidence. 2 Criminal Misc. No.31195-M of 2004 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any ground for quashing since there are disputed questions. While declining prayer for quashing, a direction is issued that the petitioners will be allowed to be represented by a counsel and their personal appearance will be exempted, subject to appropriate conditions, in the light of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. M/s Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and others, AIR 2001 SC 3625 and S.V. Mazumdar and others v. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Limited and another, (2005) 4 SCC 173. The petition is disposed of.” No ground is made out to formulate a contrary view than the one expressed by this Court in the order dated February 15, 2006 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 32656-M of 1999, which has been reproduced above. Therefore, the present petition is disposed of with an observation that no ground is made out to quash the complaint against the petitioner, however, personal appearance of the petitioner shall remain exempted before the trial Court subject to his filing an undertaking that he shall cause his appearance as and when required by the trial Court. He shall also undertake that the evidence, if any, recorded in his absence but in the presence of his counsel, shall be binding upon him. The trial Court may incorporate any other conditions in the undertaking to be furnished by the accused. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 29, 2010 rps 3