Criminal Misc. No. M-54188 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-54188 of 2007 Date of Decision: September 06, 2011 Balwan Singh Hooda ...........Petitioner Versus Naresh Kumar ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sudhir Hooda, Advocate for Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. --- Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of summoning order dated 9.3.2005 (Annexure P2) and order dated 6.10.2007 (Annexure P3) whereby the revision petition filed against order dated 9.3.2005 was dismissed. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 12.5.2002 at about 6.00 p.m., accused No. 1 to 3 had met the complainant. The complainant was engaged by them for construction of house of accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Ram Gopal Colony. The complainant completed the construction work and demanded ` 20,000/- towards final payment. Accused Nos. 2 and 3, however, were delaying the payment. On 23.2.2003 at about 7.00 p.m., Criminal Misc. No. M-54188 of 2007 2 complainant went to the house of accused No. 2 and 3. All the accused were present there. When the complainant demanded his due payment, the accused used derogatory words against him and told him that they would involve him in a false dacoity case. In support of his complaint, complainant led his preliminary evidence. Vide order dated 9.3.2005, the trial court dismissed the complaint qua accused Nos. 2 and 3 and ordered the summoning of accused No.1 to face the trial for an offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. The complainant had been engaged by accused Nos. 2 and 3 for construction of their house. Petitioner-accused No. 1 is a practicing Advocate. The payment was to be made by accused No.2 and 3. The petitioner had, thus, no occasion to use any derogatory words against the complainant or intimidate him. Since the complaint qua accused Nos. 2 and 3 had been dismissed, the same could not proceed against the petitioner. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly this petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. Consequently, the complaint qua the petitioner also stands dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge September 06 , 2011 arya