Criminal proceedings can be quashed if they are initiated with an oblique purpose and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the prosecution to continue.

J.B.Garg, J.

1. Saroop Singh and Palwinder Singh have come forward to this Court and challenged the complaint filed by Smt. Anuam wife of Shri Kuldip Dhiman for offences under Sections 354/379/380/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Shri A.D. Gour, Judicial Magistrate I-Class, Ambala.

2. Briefly, the story as given in the complaint (Annexure P-1) is that on 10.1.1993 at about 6 p.m. the complainant alongwith her husband Kuldeep Dhiman resident of Vasant Vihar, G.T. Road, Ambala City, went to Naraingarh to meet their relatives who had met with an accident and when both of them were at the bus stop of Naraingarh. Sarup Singh, Chander Mohan, Palvinder Singh and C.M. Mathews all residents of Gautam Nagar and Arjun Nagar, New Delhi reached there and out of them Chander Mohan pounced upon her with an intention of outraging her modesty. On the intervention of Satish PW named by her the accused left her though out of them C.M. Mathews accused No. 4 allegedly snatched a gold necklace weighing about 3 tolls. The accused were in a Fiat Car and they also were allegedly armed with two iron rods. A short complaint Annexure P-2 was also made to the SHO of Police-Station, Naraingarh and no case was registered by him and in fact, a stage was set for instituting the present private complaint at Ambala.

3. There was no medico-legal report. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that there had been a civil dispute inter se the parties. There was an agreement dated 4.11.1992 for construction of a building between S. Pritam Singh on one hand and S. Kuldeep Dhiman who is the husband of the complainant on the other. The premises in question are situated in Gautam Nagar, New Delhi. Kuldeep Singh Dhiman the husband of the complainant executed a general power of attorney Annexure P-9 in favour of two persons who were to arrange labour etc., for the purpose of water, sewerage and Electricity etc. and the aforesaid two attorneys received a sum of rupees one lac vide receipt Annexure P-11 by means of two cheques. A civil dispute arose inter se the parties regarding the aforesaid plot No. 1166 of 1992 was pending in the Court of Shri Rakesh Kapoor Sub-Judge I Class, Delhi Annexure P-12. Kuldeep Dhiman is in fact a resident of Gautain Nagar, New Delhi and not of Ambala as is clear from the pleadings of civil proceedings pending at New Delhi (Annexure P13).

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the contractor who is the husband of the complainant had a dispute with the plot owners and he manipulated to drag the four respectable residents of New Delhi to Ambala by instituting a false complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners had referred to para 7 of the present petition and specifically pointed out that C.M. Methews is a total stranger to the petitioners and they have now learnt that Kuldeep Dhiman was resident at the place in the neighbourhood of C.M. Mathews who had secured in injunction order against the brother of Kuldeep Singh Dhiman who wanted to have an illegal construction of a flat on his roof top.

5. In Madhavrao Jiwali Rao Scindia and another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, AIR 1988 SC 709 it was observed that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the proceedings may be quashed even at a preliminary stage. In Narain Singh v. Devinder Singh, 1988(1) Recent C.R. 452, where a Station House Officer declined to register a case the complainant secured an order of summoning from a Judicial Magistrate and when it was noticed that it was with a view to harass the accused the complaint under Sections 506/323/382/392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the resultant proceedings were quashed. The facts and circumstances of the case now in hand go to show that in o