The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in extreme cases where mala fide or vindictive litigation is evident. The trial court has the discretion to withdraw summons if it is satisfied that there is no offense for which the accused could be tried.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. This is a petition filed by Om Parkash Sachdeva and Inder Mohan (hereinafter described as the petitioners) seeking quashing of the complaint dated 16.6.1992 and the summoning order dated 20.10.1992 alongwith the subsequent proceedings pending in the Court of Shri Harnam Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hissar.

2. The facts alleged are that Shri Kishan Chand Sachdeva died leaving two sons namely Lal Chand Sachdeva (respondent No. 2) and petitioner Om Parkash Sachdeva. Shri Kishan Chand Sachdeva himself was a displaced person from West Pakistan. He migrated to India on the partition of the country and became a member of Refugee Co-operative Housing Society Limited, 14 Hailey Road, New Delhi. He had paid the admission fee and certain other amounts. On 25.8.1954 Shri Kishan Chand Sachdeva executed a will. It provided that in the event of his death, his two sons namely Lal Chand Sachdeva and Om Parkash Sachdeva shall be full owners of equal shares of the compensation. After execution of the will, he died on 1.9.1954. Om Parkash Sachdeva and Lal Chand Sachdeva had a joint account. After the demise of their father, the payments in respect of the subsequent calls were made out of the said joint account. The society was issuing receipts in the name of the widow of Shri Kishan Chand Sachdeva. The widow of Shri Kishan Chand Sachdeva had mentioned to the said society that her share and amount deposited be transferred in the name of Lal Chand Sachdeva. It is alleged that it was done to fulfil their requirements of the bye-laws. The actual transfer by the Society in favour of Lal Chand Sachdeva took place on 7.3.1962. The sale deed of the plot in favour of Lal Chand Sachdeva was dated 18.12.1963. As per the request made by Smt. Lal Devi widow of Shri Kishan Chand Sachdeva, the possession of the plot was given by the society to petitioner No. 1 Om Parkash Sachdeva and respondent No. 2 Lal Chand Sachdeva. They constructed a single storey house on the plot.

3. It is contended that respondent No. 2 Lal Chand Sachdeva filed a civil suit against petitioner No. 1 for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner No. 1 to vacate the portion of the property in his possession. The plaint was rejected because it was under valued. Thereafter petitioner No. 1 continued to be in possession of the house but respondent No. 2 illegally and fraudulently sold the house mentioned above to one Rajesh Aggarwal. It was recited that respondent No. 2 Lal Chand delivered possession of the same to the vendee. As per the assertions this was a false fact that had been stated. On coming to know of the said sale, petitioner No. 1 filed a civil suit against respondent No. 2 and Rajesh Aggarwal for partition and injunction. There were also proceedings between the petitioners on one side and Mahadev Parshad and Rajesh Aggarwal on the other side. Petitioners claim is that as a counter blast on 16.6.1992 respondent No. 2 had made a complaint against the petitioners through Mahadev Parshad who is the father of Rajesh Aggarwal at Hissar. It pertains to offences punishable under Sections 324/327/330 and 506 IPC. It is claimed that since it is a mala fide complaint, the same should be quashed.

4. The petition has been contested. Lal Chand Sachdeva in his reply denies that he has filed or got filed a complaint against the petitioners through Mahadev Parshad. He even does not know any such person. The factum of the sale of the house was not disputed. The same even has been contested by Mahadev Parshad.

5. To appreciate the questions in controversy, reference can well be made to the contents of the complaint filed at Hissar. In the said complaint filed by Mahadev Parshad, he mentions that he visits his factories at Hissar. The petitioners reside at Delhi. There is a dispute between the parties. The petitioners want that the son of Mahadev Parshad may sell the house mentioned above to them and may not charge the market price. On 3.10.1991 Maha