The main legal point established in the judgment is that a civil dispute does not get converted into a criminal offence without satisfying the essential elements of the alleged provisions, and there should be adequate application of judicial mind before setting criminal proceedings in motion.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC') seeks quashing of summoning order dated 18.12.2013, passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Complaint Case No.12257/2013, P.S. Rajouri Garden.

2. The facts of the present case, as stated in the present petition are as under:

i. The complainant is allegedly engaged in the business of property dealing and the Petitioner No.1 being the owner of the premises in question, bearing no. 60, Ground Floor, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi approached the complainant to lease out her commercial showroom.

ii. It is further alleged that accordingly the complainant showed the said property to many prospective tenants and thereafter, on 05.03.2013, a deal was finalized to let out the said property to one M/s Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Wherein it was also agreed that the Petitioner No.1 shall pay two months' rent as commission and service tax for every year of tenancy. The rent was fixed to the tune of Rs.7 Lacs for the first year and Rs.7.5 lacs for next year.

iii. The contract between the Petitioners and M/s Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd. was finalized through some exchange of emails. It is alleged that the email communication was done by her grandson Petitioner No.2, on behalf of Petitioner No.1 who is the owner of the said showroom.

iv. It is alleged that after finalization of the deal to let out the premises at the agreed rate of Rs.7 lacs and Rs.7.5 lacs, the Petitioners turned dishonest and in order to escape the payment of commission and service tax which amounted to Rs.30 lacs, the Petitioners played a fraud by sending an email stating that they are not ready to lease out the said property for less than Rs.8.5 lacs per month.

v. It is further alleged that after a lapse of some time, the complainant came to know from the market sources that the Petitioners have leased the said premises to M/s Biba Apparels Pvt. Ltd. without informing the complainant, for the earlier settled amount of Rs.7 lacs. It is alleged that the Petitioners, in a planned manner had misappropriated his commission and when the complainant approached the Petitioners with the demand of his commission, they threatened him.

vi. Subsequently, the complainant filed an application under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the application was dismissed as withdrawn by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide order dated 16.12.2013. Thereafter the complainant was examined and the arguments were heard, after which the learned Trial court was pleased to take cognizance and summoned the present petitioners vide order dated 18.12.2013 for offences under Sections 420/406 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC').

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that learned Metropolitan Magistrate has acted in a mechanical fashion and has not considered the contents of the complaint and merits of the case properly and has passed the impugned summoning order without due application of judicial mind.

4. It was further submitted that petitioner no.1 is an old lady, who is 78 years of age, who is not even able to walk properly due to her spine injury and in spite of this, respondent no.2 continuously harassed her. It was submitted that respondent no.2 even visited the house of petitioner no.1, where she was living alone with her husband who is 86 years of age and is suffering from progressive Alzheimer's disease and threatened to implicate them in false cases in order to extort money from them illegally and to use his political influence and contacts.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the last correspondence through e-mail was done on 21.03.2013 wherein petitioner no.2 had clearly mentioned that they are not willing to lease out the premises for any amount less than Rs.8,50,000/- per month and after which no further communication was done with respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 had approac