Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar Vasudev Prasad Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 December, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22248
1 MCRC-5872-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 5 th OF DECEMBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5872 of 2024
RAJKUMAR VASUDEV PRASAD SHARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi- Advocate for applicants.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani- Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Atul Gupta- Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.22/2024 registered at Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 34 of IPC.
2. Prosecution story, in short, is that complainant lodged an FIR alleging that he has retired from the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police. Applicant No.1 was already known to him. They used to talk to each other and applicant No.1 used to visit the house of complainant occasionally. Applicant No.1 had projected himself to be a builder and a property dealer and had also projected that he was a very rich person and was also instigating or persuading him to invest in the property. However, he was avoiding the same. In the year 2017, applicant No.1 met with him on multiple occasions and informed that he knows one builder Dharmeshbhai Kantibhai Patel and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/16/2024 6:06:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22248 2 MCRC-5872-2024 he is constructing a big multi-storied building in partnership with him. Applicant No.1 also informed that only four additional flats are left and offered that he wants to sell two flats to complainant. When complainant informed that neither he has any business in Ahmedabad nor he is in need of flats as he does not wish to stay there, then applicant No.1 informed that he is in need of Rs.40 lacs and he may give him on loan and whatever written documents he wants to execute, the same can be executed. When complainant informed that he is not in possession of money then applicant No.1 replied that since complainant is a retired person therefore he must have received funds. Thereafter, applicant No.1 insisted that he would return twice of the principal amount within a period of two years and by way of security he can keep two flats with him and he would bring his partner Dharmeshbhai Kantibhai Patel to Gwalior.
In the month of September, 2017, applicant No.1 came to his house along with one person who introduced himself as Dharmeshbhai Kantibhai Patel as a big builder of Ahmedabad and informed that they are constructing a big multi of 200 flats for which he is in need of money. Dharmeshbhai Kantibhai Patel also persuaded complainant that on his guarantee he may give Rs.Forty Lacs and after completion of building they would return twice of the money. When complainant informed that he is not in possession of that much of money then they requested that whatever is possible for him, he may give the same and twice of the principal amount will be returned. When complainant again expressed his inability, then they persuaded that they are giving two flats to complainant which are at least of worth Rs.One Crore and Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/16/2024 6:06:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22248 3 MCRC-5872-2024 started pressurizing him to give money. Ultimately, they got a document executed from complainant which was in Gujrati language. Although the complainant could not understand the contents of the document but relying upon applicants he gave Cheque No.996761 of Rs.Two lacs and Cheque No.996762 of Rs.Three Lacs. Thereafter, for about two years, complainant continued to request for return of the amount. When complainant enquired from applicant No.1 as to whether the construction of the building is complete or not then applicant No.1 all the time started avoiding the same. In the year 2020, he enquired from Nathuram Sharma and his brother about whereabouts of applicant No.1 then Pavan Dixit (nephew of applicant No.1) informed that applicant No.1 is not the partner of any builder. Although Dharmeshbhai Kantibhai Patel is a builder, but he is a failure and is running in losses. It was also informed that applicants are constructing a multi at a distance about 40-50 kms away from Ahmedabad. When he enquired from applicant No.1 that no building is under construction in Ahmedabad but it is being constructed in Mahemdavad then applicant No.1 responded that complainant should not have any concern about the site and very soon he would return the twice of the principal amount. Thus, it was alleged that from 2017-2020, the amount has not been returned. When he threatened applicants that he would lodge an FIR then an amount of Rs.One Lac was deposited by applicant No.1 in his bank account and the remaining amount has not been deposited.
3. Challenging the FIR, it is submitted by counsel for applicants that respondent No.2 himself had entered into an agreement to sell in respect Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/16/2024 6:06:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22248 4 MCRC-5872-2024 of Flat No.501 situated on 5th floor of flats constructed in the name of "Viththal Vinayak" and Flat No.601 situated on the 6th floor of Block E. It is a pure case of civil dispute. Even applicant No.2 Dharmeshbhai Kantibhai Patel has lodged an FIR against respondent No.2/complainant in Police Station Chandkheda, District Ahmedabad for offence under Sections 211, 506(2), 294(b) IPC on the ground that although complainant had booked the flat but now he is not ready to execute the sale-deed, as a result even the flat has been blocked due to which he cannot sell the said property to others. It is further submitted that applicants have filed civil suit against complainant.
4. Per contra, application is vehemently opposed by counsel for State as well as counsel for respondent No.2. It is submitted by State Counsel that on account of the interim order passed by this Court Police is not in a position to take any action in the FIR. Counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that in fact he was cheated by applicants.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Allegations made in FIR have already been reproduced in the previous paragraph. It appears that an agreement to sell was executed by complainant and now there is a dispute between the parties. According to applicants, complainant is not executing the sale-deed as a result their flats have got blocked and now they are not in a position to sell the same whereas it appears that complainant wants his money back.
7. Be that whatever it may be.
8. The question is as to whether offence under Section 420, 406 and 34 IPC has been made out or not?
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/16/2024 6:06:06 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22248 5 MCRC-5872-2024
9. In order to make out an offence under Section 420 IPC there has to be dishonest intention from the very inception of the case. Complainant has executed an agreement and now he wants to disown the same by alleging that since it was in Gujarati language, therefore, he could not understand the same and had signed the same in good faith. Section 52 of IPC defines "Good Faith" which reads as under:
52. "Good faith".--
Nothing is said to be done or believed in "good faith"
which is done or believed without due care and attention.
Thus, in order to claim good faith, a person is under obligation to plead and prove that the act was performed by him after exercising due care and attention. If document was in Gujarati language and complainant was not aware of Gujarati language then he should not have signed the same without understanding the said agreement. Once complainant himself has signed the agreement then he cannot claim that it was signed without understanding the same. Even otherwise, Section 92 of Evidence Act prohibits ocular evidence contrary to contents of document.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai & Others Vs. The State of West Bengal & Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305 has held as under:-
7. Predominantly, the Indian Judiciary has time and again reiterated that forum shopping take several hues and shades but the concept of 'forum shopping' has not been rendered an exclusive definition in any Indian statute. Forum shopping as per Merriam Webster dictionary is:-Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/16/2024 6:06:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22248 6 MCRC-5872-2024 "The practice of choosing the court in which to bring an action from among those courts that could properly exercise jurisdiction based on determination of which court is likely to provide the most favourable outcome"
8. The Indian judiciary's observation and obiter dicta has aided in streamlining the concept of forum shopping in the Indian legal system. This Court has condemned the practice of forum shopping by litigants and termed it as an abuse of law and also deciphered different categories of forum shopping.
9. A two-Judge bench of this Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Cipla Ltd. & Anr. (2017) 5 SCC 262 has laid down factors which lead to the practice of forum shopping or choice of forum by the litigants which are as follows:-
"148. A classic example of forum shopping is when litigant approaches one Court for relief but does not get the desired relief and then approaches another Court for the same relief. This occurred in Rajiv Bhatia Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others, (1999) 8 SCC 525. The respondent-mother of a young child had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Rajasthan High Court and apparently did not get the required relief from that Court. She then filed a petition in the Delhi High Court also for a writ of habeas corpus and obtained the necessary relief. Notwithstanding this, this Court did not interfere with the order passed by the Delhi High Court for the reason 8 that this Court ascertained the views of the child and found that she did not want to even talk to her adoptive parents and therefore the custody of the child granted by the Delhi High Court to the respondentmother was not interfered with. The decision of this Court is on its own facts, even though it is a classic case of forum shopping.Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/16/2024 6:06:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22248 7 MCRC-5872-2024
149. In Arathi Bandi v. Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao & Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 790 this Court noted that jurisdiction in a Court is not attracted by the operation or creation of fortuitous circumstances. In that case, circumstances were created by one of the parties to the dispute to confer jurisdiction on a particular High Court. This was frowned upon by this Court by observing that to allow the assumption of jurisdiction in created circumstances would only result in encouraging forum shopping.
150. Another case of creating circumstances for the purposes of forum shopping was World Tanker Carrier Corporation v. SNP Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. and others, (1998) 5 SCC 310 wherein it was observed that the respondent/plaintiff had made a deliberate attempt to bring the cause of action namely a collision between two vessels on the high seas within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Bringing one of the vessels to Bombay in order to confer jurisdiction on the Bombay High Court had the character of forum shopping rather than anything else.
151. Another form of forum shopping is taking advantage of a view held by a particular High Court in contrast to a different view held by another High Court. In Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2007) 6 SCC 769 the assesse was from Lucknow. It challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the CESTAT) located in Delhi before the Delhi High Court. The CESTAT had jurisdiction over the States of Uttar Pradesh, NCT of Delhi and Maharashtra. The Delhi High Court did not entertain the proceedings initiated by the assessee for want of territorial jurisdiction. Dismissing the assessee's appeal this Court gave the example of an assessee affected by an assessment order in Bombay invoking the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to take Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/16/2024 6:06:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22248 8 MCRC-5872-2024 advantage of the law laid down by the Delhi High Court or an assessee affected by an order of assessment made at Bombay invoking the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it and consequently evade the law laid down by the Bombay High Court. It was said that this could not be allowed and circumstances such as this would lead to some sort of judicial anarchy.
155. The decisions referred to clearly lay down the principle that the court is required to adopt a functional test vis-à-vis the litigation and the litigant. What has to be seen is whether there is any functional similarity in the proceedings between one court and another or whether there is some sort of subterfuge on the part of a litigant. It is this functional test that will determine whether a litigant is indulging in forum shopping or not."
10. Forum shopping has been termed as disreputable practice by the courts and has no sanction and paramountcy in law. In spite of this Court condemning the practice of forum shopping, Respondent No. 2 filed two complaints i.e., a complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C before the Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi on 06.06.2012 and a complaint which was eventually registered as FIR No. 168 u/s 406, 420, 120B IPC before PS Bowbazar, Calcutta on 28.03.2013. ie., one in Delhi and one complaint in Kolkata. The Complaint filed in Kolkata was a reproduction of the complaint filed in Delhi except with the change of place occurrence in order to create a jurisdiction.
11. A two-Judge bench of this Court in Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.(2021) 5 SCC 435 observed that multiple complaints by the same party against the same accused in respect of the same incident is impermissible. It held that Permitting multiple complaints by the same party in respect of the same incident, whether it involves a cognizable or private complaint offence, will lead to the accused Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/16/2024 6:06:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22248 9 MCRC-5872-2024 being entangled in numerous criminal proceedings. As such he would be forced to keep surrendering his liberty and precious time before the police and the courts, as and when required in each case.
12. The legality of the second FIR was extensively discussed by this Court in T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181. It was held that there can be no second FIR where the information concerns the same cognisable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences. It was further held that once an FIR postulated by the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C has been recorded, any information received after the commencement of investigation cannot form the basis of a second FIR as doing so would fail to comport with the scheme of the Cr.P.C. The Court further held that barring situations in which a countercase is filed, a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognizable offence would constitute an "abuse of the statutory power of investigation" and may be a fit case for the exercise of power either under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India
13. A two-Judge bench of this Court in K. Jayaram and Ors. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1194 observed:
"16. It is necessary for us to state here that in order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement, we are of the view that the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/16/2024 6:06:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22248 10 MCRC-5872-2024 parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or 10 court litigations was or is pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law."
14. The genesis of the present appeal originates from the impugned order pronounced by the High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the application filed under Section 482 as well as 401 Cr.P.C. Taking that into concern, it is necessary to advert to the principles settled by judicial pronouncements laying down the circumstances under which High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
15. This Court in the widely celebrated judgment of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335considered in detail the scope of the High Court powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and referred to several judicial precedents and held that the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry into the merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the proceedings without allowing the investigating agency to complete its task. At the same time, this Court identified the following cases in which FIR/complaint can be quashed:
"102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/16/2024 6:06:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22248 11 MCRC-5872-2024 (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the 21 proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
16. This Court in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, (1960) 3 SCR 388 summarized categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:-
(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/16/2024 6:06:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22248 12 MCRC-5872-2024 of sanction;
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
17. This Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (2007) 12 SCC 1 observed:-
"27. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage"
18. In Indian Oil Corpn. v NEPC India Ltd. & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 736 a two-judge Bench of this Court reviewed the precedents on the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and formulated guiding principles in the following terms:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/16/2024 6:06:06 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22248 13 MCRC-5872-2024 "12. ... (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
(v) .."
19. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 691 made the following observation :-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/16/2024 6:06:06 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22248 14 MCRC-5872-2024 "11. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code."
20. This Court in G. Sagar Suri & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 636 observed that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature.
21. This Court has time and again cautioned about converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This Court in Indian Oil Corporation (Supra) noticed the 13 prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The Court further Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/16/2024 6:06:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22248 15 MCRC-5872-2024 observed that:-
"13. ...any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."
34. There can be no doubt that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. However, as held by this court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 168, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating, which is criminal offence, is a fine one. While breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating. In the case at hand, complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2 does not disclose dishonest or fraudulent intention of the appellants.
36. Having gone through the complaint/FIR and even the chargesheet, it cannot be said that the averments in the FIR and the allegations in the complaint against the appellant constitute an offence under Section 405 & 420 IPC, 1860. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his 17 promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been made out. In the instant case, there is no material to indicate that Appellants had any malafide intention against the Respondent which is clearly deductible from the MOU dated 20.08.2009 arrived between the parties."
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and another decided on 22.07.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.3020/2024 has held that breach of contract does not call for any criminal action. A civil wrong cannot be given criminal colour merely to Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/16/2024 6:06:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:22248 16 MCRC-5872-2024 coerce the applicant into registering the sale. The judicial process cannot be used as a tool to enforce specific performance of agreement.
12. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that allegations made in FIR are predominantly of civil in nature and complainant has tried to give it the colour of criminal case which should always be discouraged. Accordingly, it is a fit case for quashment of FIR in Crime No.22/2024 registered at Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 34 of IPC and accordingly it is hereby quashed. However, respondent No.2/complainant shall be free to initiate civil proceedings for redressal of his grievances.
13. With aforesaid observation, this application is allowed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE pd Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN DHARKAR Signing time: 12/16/2024 6:06:06 AM