Delhi High Court
Lachman Dass Narang And Anr. vs Ved Prakash on 5 August, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994IVAD(DELHI)902, 55(1994)DLT496
JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.
(1) The petitioners have, in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayed for quashing the complaint(Annexure D) filed by the respondent under Sections 323/506/448/34 of the Indian Penal Code which is stated to be pending in the Court of Shri O.P. Soni, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi as also the order of summoning the petitioners passed on 5.6.1992.
(2) Respondent, Ved Prakash, is a neighbour of the petitioners. On 25.12.1987some quarrel took place which resulted in police taking proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the parties.Petitioners as well as respondent were arrested. After the proceedings concluded good sense appears to have prevailed upon the parties. On 3.6.1988 at the intervention of some respectable persons of the locality, the matter was patched up and thus no dispute remained to be resolved with respect to the incident which had happened on 25.12.1987. As a result of the compromise terms of which were reduced into writing, the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 2.9.1988 ordered the dropping of proceedings and cancelling the bond.
(3) After the proceedings had come to an end as a result of the compromise,it appears that on 15.12.1988, respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners for an offence under Sections 323/506/448/34 alleging that on 25.12.1987 while he was attending the procession on the birth centenary of Guru Govind Singhji, the petitioners threatened him with dire consequences and started beating him by giving blows. After the incident, it is alleged that he and the petitioners were arrested and a Kalandara under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared by the police. Since petitioners had committed the offence,therefore, he prayed that they be punished in accordance with law. In support of the complaint, the respondent examined some witnesses and on 5.6.1992 the impugned order was passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning the petitioners: It is this order and the complaint which are sought to be quashed in these proceedings.
(4) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the affidavits exchanged amongst them. It is not disputed by respondent that only one incident took place on 25.12.1987 for which proceedings were initiated against the petitioners under Sections 107 & 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which ultimately culminated in a compromise and for the same incident a complaint was late on preferred by him. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that it is with a view to harass the petitioners that the respondent, after thecompromise, has initiated the proceedings which deserve to be quashed on various grounds stated in the petition.
(5) Learned Counsel for the respondent contends that only proceedings under Sections 107 & 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were got dropped and not the act of the petitioner in which respondent was given beatings by the petitioners.
(6) On considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the respective affidavits, I find that after the compromise nothing survived and now allowing the proceedings initiated by the respondent on a complaint to continue will be nothing but total abuse of process oflaw. The compromise which was reduced into writing, if read as a whole, would show that at the intervention of respectable of the locality the differences were patched up and respondent in categorical terms stated that no dispute was left as regards the incident dated 25.12.1987. The compromise reads: "2.That through the intervention of respectable people of the locality, the matter has been patched up between the parties and no dispute is leftover.3. That the parties are both neighbourers and through litigation, there are more chances of their relations becoming strain, so they have totally compromised on all point.4. That in the light of the compromise between the parties no dispute is left over, and there is no apprehension of breach of peace any more."
(7) In case on 25.12.1987 only one incident had taken place, which on 31.8.1988was patched up by the parties and was also accepted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 2.9.1988, complaint based upon the same incident which was instituted by the respondent after a period of almost one year from the date of incident and more than 3 months from the date of compromise on 15.12.1988, is nothing but appears to be an after thought and if is allowed to continue more especially now after a lapse of six years will be nothing but abuse of the process of .law.In view of above, I allow the petition and quash the complaint (Annexure D)as well as the impugned order dated 5.6.1993.