CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.36838 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 06, 2011 Amrit Lal Arya .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner seeks quashing of a complaint dated 23.4.2007, Annexure P-3 and the summoning order dated 19.11.2008, Annexure P-5, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face prosecution for offences under Sections 500, 501, 504, 506, 420, 34 IPC. The petitioner is a retired Branch Manager of State Bank of Patiala. In the year 2006-07, he was posted as a Branch Manager of State Bank of Patiala, Bhucho Mandi, District Bathinda. The complainant was one of the customer CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.36838 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: of the Bank. As per the petitioner, the complainant had obtained a loan and was a defaulter. So was his brother. It is made out that the complainant is a retired employee and is a stooge in the hands of some loanee parties of the Bank and, thus, has filed frivolous suit against the Bank. The respondent now has filed a complaint on 30.9.2006 (wrongly mentioned in the petition as 30.9.2011). It is alleged that when the respondent went to the Bank, the petitioner misbehaved with him. In his defence, the petitioner has projected that on 30th September and 31st March the Bank was closed for its biannual closing and on 30.9.2006, there was Bank holiday and the Bank was closed for the customers. Accordingly, the petitioner submits that the present complaint was filed just to put pressure on the Bank to ignore the irregularities in the accounts of the respondent. The respondent has given evidence and in support has examined Avinash Kumar and Tikka Ram, which has led to the summoning of the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint does not reveal any offence under Section 420 or 34 IPC but while issuing the summoning order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda, has mechanically summoned the petitioner under all the Sections, including 420 and 34 IPC. As per the complaint, the petitioner had forcibly and illegally deducted a sum of `2,000/- on 26.7.2006 after CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.36838 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: drawing the same from his pension account. On next day, the petitioner deducted another sum of `1,900/- from the same account, which is his pension account. The respondent pleads that this was done intentionally in order to harass and to cause mental tension to the complainant. The respondent had raised protest, when the petitioner returned a sum of `1,900/- to the complainant. While this was happening, the petitioner had misbehaved and humiliated and disgraced the complainant by saying “Dalia Bank ton Bahar ho jaa”. This was the abusive language, which the petitioner had allegedly used. Abinash Kumar Sharma and Pirthi Chand were present at that time, who have appeared to support the version of the petitioner. Whether this will reveal offence under Section 420 IPC or not is to be seen by the Trial Court. Similarly it is for the trial Court to see if other offences are made out or not or if there was any threat advanced to the complainant. All these aspects are to be appreciated by the Trial Court. The impugned order was passed about three years ago in November 2008. The petitioner has not raised a little finger against this order for all this while and has now filed this petition nearly after three years. Concededly, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a revision against the same, which he has not filed obviously because it is time barred. CRIMINAL MISC.-M NO.36838 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: This Court may be competent to entertain petition for quashing even when the revision is not filed, but quashing of a complaint can be ordered on altogether different parameters. As per Section 482 Cr.P.C., the inherent jurisdiction is invoked only in those cases where there is an abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice. The complaints ordinarily can be quashed on the basis of averments made by way of an affidavit with the petition. Reference here can be made to State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others, 2004(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 233. Merely because the Court has mentioned Section 34 IPC, there being no other person involved with the petitioner, would not lead to indicate that it is a case of non- application of mind. It is a summoning order and the Court has yet to see what all offences are made out from the evidence. The Trial Court, in my view, has rightly considered the evidence and justifiably summoned the petitioner. It is not a fit case for interference. The petition is, thus, dismissed. December 06, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE