Neeraj Arora v. Dhiraj Sharma

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) In the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, petitioner- Neeraj Arora has prayed for quashing of complaint No.362-1 (P.1) dated

16.12.2009 filed by respondent-Dhiraj Sharma (complainant) under Sections 452/406/364/ 120-B/323/384/355/ 500/504/506/34 IPC as well as summoning order dated 20.8.2010 (P.2) whereby the petitioner and one Parmod Nagpal have been ordered to be summoned under Sections 452/323/504/506 read with Section 34 IPC; with all consequential proceedings passed by learned JMIC, Jalalabad (West). It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner-Neeraj Arora was/is running a firm under the name of Nature Way at Abohar and his co- accused Parmod Nagpal was the Managing Director of the said firm. Respondent-complainant Dhiraj Sharma was working as Salesman with the petitioner-Neeraj Arora on a monthly salary of Rs.8500/- along with other allowances. It is further alleged that accused No.1 promised to pay bonus, overtime and increments in addition to the pay but the same was not paid. Crl.M.No.35036-M of 2010 #2# Thereafter, the complainant-respondent was transferred to Tanda with a promise that he would be paid Rs.5000/- extra per month but the same was also not paid to him. Ultimately, a dispute was raised before the learned Labour Court at Bathinda against the petitioner because of which the petitioner got infuriated and threatened the respondent-complainant with dire consequences. On 13.12.2009, around 12.00 noon, complainant was present in his house along with his family, when a Car stopped outside his house and the petitioner, Parmod Nagpal along with ¾ unidentified persons tres-passed the house of the complainant and started abusing and caught the complainant from throat and slapped him. Petitioner exhorted the others to abduct the complainant-respondent to teach him a lesson for filing the case against the petitioner before the Labour Court. It is further alleged that the petitioner threatened the complainant and his family with dire consequences if the complainant does not withdraw the case filed in Labour Court. The complainant further alleged that he made hue and cry upon which his father Kharaiti Lal, Nek Chand son of Ram singh and other neighbourers gathered at the spot and rescued the complainant-respondent. Aggrieved against the summoning order, petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the complaint as well as summoning order. The record of the case shows that the complaint has been filed in the court of learned JMIC, Jalalabad District Ferozepur in which the address of the petitioner is shown as exactly the same as mentioned in the present petition i.e of Abohar District, Ferozepur and the petitioner is claiming himself to be permanent resident of Abohar, Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the amended provisions of Section 202 of the code of Criminal Crl.M.No.35036-M of 2010 #3# Procedure, 1973, the issue of process against the petitioner should have been postponed as the petitioner is residing beyond the jurisdiction of the learned JMIC, Jalalabad (West) and thus the summoning order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support, learned counsel relies upon a judgment of this court reported as Prem Kaur @ Premo v. Balwinder Kaur 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 4. Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads thus: “202. Postponement of issue of process.- (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, [and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction] postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.” After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record of the case, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves to be dismissed with the following reasons: A perusal of the amended provisions of Section 202 reveals that in a case, where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area of jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, then process shall be postponed against the accused and an inquiry shall be made either by the Magistrate himself or an investigation shall be ordered to be conducted by a Police Officer or by such other person as the learned Magistrate thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether there are sufficient grounds for the summoning of the accused or not. The word inquiry is defined under sub clause (g) of Section 2 Cr.P.C, which reads as under: Crl.M.No.35036-M of 2010 #4#

2. Definitions.- In this Code, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) to (f) (g) “inquiry” means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court (h) to (y) xxx;” A perusal of definition of word “inquiry” means every inquiry other than a trial conducted under the provision of this Code by a Magistrate or a Court, therefore, the impugned summoning order dated 20.8.2010 (P.2) has been passed after appraisal of documentary as well as oral evidence led by the complainant and that, in my view, satisfies the requirement of conducting an inquiry. A bare reading of the impugned summoning order dated 20.8.2010 (P.2) clearly reveals that in this case, complainant- respondent examined one Harbans Lal as CW1, Nek Chand as CW2 and Khairati Lal as CW3 besides examining himself as PW4 and other documentary evidence including Audio Casettes regarding conversation with the accused as Ex.PA and Newspaper report (Ex.P1) produced by CW1 supporting the allegations made in the complaint. Thereafter, after considering the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence at length, the learned Judicial Magistrate found that a prima facie grounds for summoning the petitioner as well as Parmod Nagpal under Section 452/323/504/506 read with Section 34 IPC are made out and consequently accused were ordered to be summoned to face the trial while passing a detailed reasoned order. It is necessary to mention here that the learned Judicial Magistrate has also found that no offence under Sections 406,364,355 IPC is made out against the accused. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has fully complied with the requirement of Section 202 Cr.P.C while passing the impugned summoning order dated 20.8.2010 and there is Crl.M.No.35036-M of 2010 #5# no requirement of Section 202 Cr.P.C to be followed by the learned Magistrate to the extent that he should have passed a separate and distinct order by holding an inquiry before passing the summoning order dated

20.8.2010. Dismissed. November 30, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE