Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8.1 Mr.Thakkar, learned senior advocate for the petitioners submitted that the allegations in the impugned complaint/FIR are completely improbable. It is claimed that any employee of electricity company cannot be involved in theft of company's property, installed in the housing society. According to learned senior advocate for the complainant, the allegations made by the respondent in his complaint are completely impossible and improbable to believe and therefore, the complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside. The other ground on which the petitioners have taken out present petition, is that the complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and therefore also the complaint deserves to be quashed and set aside. The third and last ground urged by the learned advocate for the petitioners is that the allegations made by the respondent do not inspire confidence. These are the grounds urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.

8.2 Mr.Thakkar, learned senior advocate for the petitioners relied on the decision in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal [AIR 1992 SC 604]. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners submitted that the impugned FIR falls under sub-para 5 of para 108 of said decision and is accordingly covered under one of several by the different kinds of cases mentioned in said decision. Hence, the Court would exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

9. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent has opposed the submissions and contended that the complaint filed by the respondent is prior in point of time, whereas the complaint filed by the security officer of the company on behalf of the concerned employees is a subsequent complaint which came to be filed about three days after the date of incident. This, according to the respondent, means that the complaint filed by security officer is an afterthought and counter-blast. Learned advocate for the respondent also contended that the petitioners are not justified in claiming that his complaint is abuse of process, whereas the complaint filed on their behalf is not abuse of process of law, but it deserves to be prosecuted on merits. It is also contended by the learned advocate for the respondent that whether the allegations made by the complainant are incorrect or improbable or not would become clear after investigation and there is no justification in terminating the FIR/complaint filed by him, i.e. the respondent even without investigation of the complaint made by him. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that any case to thwart the investigation at initial stage is not made out.

17. So far as petitioner's contention about improbability about respondent's allegations is concerned, the incidents/cases, wherein employees of any company maybe allegedly involved in theft of company's property, are not wanting. There would be cases and cases where the employees of several companies, wherein employees are visited with the allegations / show cause notices for having committed of theft of company's property and there would be cases where departmental actions are taken against such employees for such acts or other proceedings in the Court might have been taken out against such employees for such acts.

17.1 Therefore, at the threshold of the investigation an even before the investigation is completed, it would be too early for the Court to assume that the allegations made by the respondent are absolutely improbable, concocted, incorrect and wholly unjustified and to record such conclusion (without benefit of any material since investigation is yet not carried out) and on the basis of such conclusion to quash the FIR at its threshold.

17.2 Thus, in view of the facts of present case the decision in case of State of Haryana (supra) on which learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied, will not help the petitioners.