S.P. Garg, J.

1. M.P.Singh Sahni (hereinafter referred as the petitioner or accused) has preferred various petitions CRL.M.C.Nos. 3772/2003, 2444- 45/2005, 54/2008, 2790/2000, 3773/2003, 3779/2003, 3781/2003, 3782/2003, 3784/2003, 3193/2005 and 3783/2003 for quashing of the various criminal proceedings initiated against him by Harnam Singh (hereinafter referred as complainant or respondent).

2. Case of the complainant is that he is a highly qualified exbanker having an experience of seventeen years. He was earlier posted at Senior Executive level in a Nationalized Bank. The petitioner and his wife Narider Pal Kaur Sahni engaged him to provide professional services in respect of non-delivery of 40,000 shares of M/s.Essar Gujarat Ltd. and for clearance of 11 FDRs with Kuwait International Finance Company (KIFCO). For that purpose, an agreement dated 22.07.1991 and irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 01.08.1991 were executed. Supplementary agreement dated 09.10.1992 was also executed. Again, an agreement/ memorandum of understanding dated 07.03.1995 and subsequent agreement dated 14.03.1995 were executed along with irrevocable General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 18.05.1995 in his favour. He filed complaint with the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission; Civil Suit bearing No.2436/1996 against M/s.Essar Gujarat Ltd. and incurred expenses from his pocket. Vide notice dated 22.10.1997, the petitioner through his counsel Mr.Arvind Kumar Gupta, Advocate cancelled the GPA dated 18.05.1995. He sent reply to the petitioner on 25.10.1997.

3. Petitioner’s case is that he is a Non Resident Indian and is residing in Kuwait for the last 30 years with his family. He is doing business in Kuwait. He had fixed deposits with Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), Bombay to the tune of US $8,23,348. The FDRs were pledged with Kuwait Investment Finance Company (KIFCO) against some loan. There were some dispute between him and KIFCO. To protect his interest, he secured the services of the complainant and agreement dated 22.07.1991 was executed whereby the complainant was to get 5% as professional fee on the amount realized in India. Subsequent agreement was also executed in which the professional fee was increased to 7% for clearance of one FDR No.1798. The respondent filed suit in 1993 after an inordinate delay. Since the respondent was unable to protect his interest, he was forced to cancel GPA executed in his favour. Thereafter, the litigation started between the parties.

4. On 01.02.2013, the petitioner opted to address arguments without the assistance of his lawyer. The respondent also opted to address arguments himself. Common arguments in all the petitions were addressed by both.

5. The petitioner urged that the respondent has implicated him in numerous false and frivolous cases. When he cancelled GPA executed in his favour, the respondent started lodging false complaints on frivolous grounds. He did not commit any offence. Respondent’s only motive to file complaint cases against him was to extract money as he was unable to pursue those cases being an NRI residing in Kuwait. He did not forge any document. He had no intention to defame him any time. He had reposed confidence in him and had availed his professional services to get clear his FDRs and to get back 40,000 shares. The respondent did not account for the amount received and illegally retained the shares handed over by M/s. Essar Company.

6. The petitioner filed written synopsis and relied upon the authorities : “Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Limited vs. Rajvir Industries Limited and ors.” : (2008) 13 SCC 678, “All Cargo Movers (India) Private Limited and ors. Vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and anr.” : (2007) 14 SCC 776, “M/s. Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s. NEPC India Ltd and ors.” : AIR 2006 (SC) 2780 & “Dr.P.Sharma vs. P.S.Popli and anr.” : 2002 (1) JCC 66.

7. The respondent/ complainant urged that the petitioner is a big fraud and a habitual offender. He