M. R. Verma, J.: This petition under Section 397,401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner-accused (here-in-after referred to as the petitioner) for quashing the orders dated 17.7.1998 passed by the learned JMIC(l), Una, directing, issue of summons to the petitioner on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant (here-in-after referred to as the respondent) under Section 500 J.P.C. and also for quashing the complaint. .

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records.

3. The sum and substance of the complaint against the petitioner is that the residential houses of the parties at Una are adjacent to each other and the petitioner had been using the passage of the property of the respondent for the purpose of entrance to his house. On 18.7.1997 the respondent asked the petitioner to make alternative arrangement for passage to his house. The petitioner however lodged a complaint against the respondent to the police that the respondent and his son had threatened the petitioner and his wife and have also threatened to block their passage and have demolished his stairs. On this complaint A.S.I. Shamsher Singh alongwith a few other police officials went to the house of the respondent to make inquiries into the matter. When the respondent returned home on 19.7.1997 at about 7 PM he was shocked to see the police at his residence without any reasons. He was informed by the said A.S.I, that the police had gone on the spot in connection with the complaint made by the petitioner who apprehended danger to himself and members of his family from the respondent, his sons and 20 others. On inspection the police found that there was no demolition etc. nor there was any tension whatsoever, therefore, the police went away. It is further the case of the respondent in the complaint that the petitioner knowingly and intenitonally to harm the reputation in the complaint and to defame him filed a false complaint with the police against him and his son and 20 others resulting in the visit of the police to his residence which has defamed the respondent who was living a respectable retired life and thereby had been defamed in the eyes of the neighbours and the other people because of the false complaint.

4. The respondent led preliminary evidence to show grounds to summon the accused and in addition to his own statement examined CW-2 Sanjay Sharrna, CW-3 Mohinder Singh, CW-4 Yogman Singh, CW-5 Kamal Dev, CW-6 H.C. Ramesh Chand, CW-7 Shamsher Singh and also produced in evidence a copy of the complaint made by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police Ext. CW-7/A on the basis of which the police visited the spot, statement of the petitioner recorded by the police during the inquiry Ext. CW-7/B and the report of the A.S.I, about the matter Ext.CW-7/C.

5. The respondent and CW-2 Sanjay Sharma by and large supported the contents of the complaint and CW-3 Mohinder Singh, CW-4 Yogman Singh, CW-5 Kamal Dev and other witnesses have supported the version in the complaint about the visit of the police to the spot. The net prima facie result of this evidence as per the statements of the witnesses is that the arrival of the police on the spot had affected the reputation of the complainant. CW-6 H.C. Ramesh Chand and CW-7 A.S.I. Shamsher Singh have produced the records of the inquiry as stated here-in-above.

6. A perusal of the complaint Ext.PW-7/A reveals that the respondent (accused therein) is an influential person and he alongwith his two sons and large number of persons of dangerous nature are threatening to uproot the stairs going to first floor belonging to the petitioners father and also threatened to remove the septic tank and boundary wall, therefore, legal action may be taken against him. There is no allegation in the complaint that the respondent and his companions had demolished the stairs of the petitioner. The only allegation in the