IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No. M-33652 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.09.2011 Amit Sharma & Anr. ..Petitioners Versus Lt. Col. Mohim Kumar Sharma (Retd.) ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.PC' ) seeking quashing of the Criminal complaint No. 36 of 2005 filed on 21.4.2005 under Sections 448, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') (Annexure P/1) as well as summoning order dated 24.01.2006 (Annexure P-2) passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Chandigarh vide which the petitioners alongwith other have been summoned to face the trial under Section 448 and 506 IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint in question qua co-accused Triveni Sharma has since been quashed by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2010 in CRM No. M-15775 of 2009 (Annexure P-3). Petitioners are the son and daughter of Triveni Sharma. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service. Crl. M. No. M-33652 of 2010 (O&M) -2- After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. This Court while allowing the CRM No.M-15775 of 2009 filed by Triveni Sharma seeking quashing of the Complaint held as under:- "It is to be seen from the contents of the complainant itself if any such offence is made out there from against the petitioner or not. All the facts stated therein are to be taken on the face value without any addition or substraction. It is averred therein that on 25.3.2005, all the accused started abusing the complainant and his family members from the first floor without any provocation and that thereafter they came down near the verandah on the ground floor and tried to make forcible entry into the drawing room but were stopped by locking the door. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused entered upon the property in his posssession, which is sine qua non for constituting the offence of criminal tress pass as per the definition contained in Section 441 IPC. It is not the contention of the complainant that the accused forcibly entered the verandah which was in his possession with intention to commit an offence. In that case, it cannot be said that there was any such criminal tress pass by the present petitioner, who was one amongst the said accused. So far as the offence under Section 506 IPC is concerned, it has been averred by the complainant in the complaint that on 25.3.2005 all the accused started abusing him and his family members that he and his family members would be involved in false cases. It was not possible for four accused to give such a threat in one voice. There is no specific attribution to the present Crl. M. No. M-33652 of 2010 (O&M) -3- petitioner. It is the admitted case of the parties that they are at daggers drawn, after the dispute arose between them regarding the partition of the house. On previous occasions also, there were disputes between them, which were got compromised. In such an eventuality the petitioner was to come out with definite accusation against each of accused. Only vague allegations have been leveled, which under the circumstances of the present case are not to be taken cognizance of. The complaint against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of law”. In view of above decision the present petition is also liable to be allowed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The Criminal Complaint No. 36 of 2005 filed on 21.4.2005 under Sections 448, 452 and 506 IPC (Annexure P/1) as well as summoning order dated 24.01.2006 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. (SABINA) September 05, 2011 JUDGE Poonam (II)