Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned counsel for applicants submits that during pendency of application, applicant no.1 has passed away; that opposite party no.2 with ulterior motive to harm and harass applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with absolutely false and incorrect allegations on 5.1.2011 with regard to the alleged incident dated 10.11.2009 and 11.11.2009 on which police report was called from P.S. concerned and despite the report of Police Station about falsity of contents of application, the learned Magistrate treated it as complaint and after following the procedure under Chapter XV of Cr.P.C. passed impugned summoning order; that prosecution of applicants for the offences under Sections 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. is malicious one; that the real fact is that father of opposite party no.2 was a Class-IV employee of Bappa Shri Narayan Vocational Post Graduate College, Lucknow of which applicant no.2 was the manager; that father of opposite party no.2 being Class-IV employee was alloted a quarter in the premises of college in which by making material alteration without permission of college he converted it into shopping and commercial place with dairy and thereafter also encroached over the adjoining quarter due to which disciplinary action was taken and his services were terminated with initiation of eviction proceedings which have been decided in favour of college though revision is pending before competent court; that feeling aggrieved with the termination of his services the father of opposite party no.2 got filed a false Complaint Case No.74 of 2018 against applicant no.2, the then Manager, Dr. Brij Kishore Dwivedi, the then Principal of College and Chhote Lal, a clerk of Bappa Shri Narayan Vocational Post Graduate College, Lucknow for offences under Sections 323, 380, 504, 506 I.P.C. and thereafter with malafide intentions got moved another application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging F.I.R. against applicants for the alleged incident dated 10.11.2009 or 11.11.2009; that learned C.J.M. acted wrongly and illegally in passing impugned summoning order on frivolous and vexatious complaint even in absence of any injury report; that the allegations about offences U/s 504/506 I.P.C. are ornamental in nature and no offence is made out against applicants; that learned C.J.M. did not apply judicial mind and passed the impugned summoning order dated 13.2.2012 in cyclostyle manner; that no incident was caused by applicants or their associates on 10.11.2009 or 11.11.2011 and neither applicant no.1 (who was posted as senior I.P.S. Officer in Delhi at the relevant time) entered the house of opposite party no.2 with his associates or otherwise nor abused anybody nor committed mar-peet with anybody; that summoning order and proceedings of another Complaint Case No.74 of 2008 and under Sections 323, 380, 504, 506 I.P.C. filed by opposite party no.2 were challenged by applicant no.2 and co-accused persons by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.4016 of 2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which was disposed of by a detailed judgment and order dated 16.4.2013 quashing the proceedings of complaint case, holding them to be based on malicious prosecution and amounting to abuse of process of Court, copy filed at R.A.-1; that prosecution of applicants in present complaint is also malicious one in retaliation to the disciplinary action taken resulting in removal of father of opposite party no.2 from services of college; that no plausible reason has been assigned for filing complaint case or moving application U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. with inordinate delay of period of more than one year from the alleged incident; that pendency of criminal proceedings against applicant no.2, who is above 80 years old sick person and was Manager of college, are nothing but abuse of process of Court and proceedings are liable to be quashed.

"31. So far as the factual matrix is concerned, no offence under section 380 IPC is prima facie made out. If the college administration removes the flex board installed without permission of the college administration over the premises belonging to college, no offence said to have been committed.
32. The present prosecution is the outcome of ill will of O.P.No.4 to put pressure upon the college administration to settle the score by illegal means. This prosecution is clearly an abuse of process of court. This criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and 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. The proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice."