The court can quash a complaint if it finds it to be a misuse of the process of the court, lacking evidence, and filed after a long delay.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. - This is a petition seeking for quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-4) under Section 380/457 IPC filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, Order dated 04.01.2016(Anneuxre P-5) summoning the petitioner as accused in the above said complaint as well as the Order dated 18.10.2016(Annxure P-6) whereby the revision petition filed by the present petitioner; against the order of summoning; is dismissed.

2. The brief facts of this case are that a complaint was made by the complainant/respondent No. 3 to the police on 02.06.2013 alleging; that in the month of April, 2003, the complainant had gone to Haridwar alongwith his family. Only his son namely, Ajay Kumar, was left at his home. When the complainant returned from Haridwar then he found that the Jewellery, i.e. 4 gold bangles and 01 chain, were missing from the Almirah kept in his house. On asking his son Ajay Kumar, the complainant came to know that during the absence of the complainant, the present petitioner had slept with the son of the complainant in his house. Therefore, complainant suspected that theft was committed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the FIR No.84, dated 2.06.2003 under Section 380 and 457 IPC was registered at Police Station Majitha. The police investigated the case. Although there was no other material available with the police to support the allegation of the complainant, however, one extra judicial confession was made by one Inderjit Marwaha. On the basis of that, the police proceeded further in the matter. However, ultimately ;the police did not find any evidence to sustain the allegation of the complainant. Therefore, the police filed cancellation report in the FIR on 14.01.2010 and the same was accepted by the Magistrate on 01.10.2011.

3. There is another aspect of this matter. In the meantime when the father of the petitioner had made application to the police that his son was being wrongly involved in this case, then the police had initiated proceedings (under Section 182 Cr.P.C.) against the father of the petitioner, for allegedly giving false information to the police. However, those proceedings were quashed by this Court in CRM-M-21068-2007 vide Order dated 28.04.2007. It is also on record that in the matter of bail application of the petitioner; the parties happen to have reached upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well. However, the petitioner was not granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. Consequent upon the cancellation report, the matter was laid to rest by the Magistrate on 01.10.2011 by dismissing the objections filed by the complainant. The complainant remained satisfied for about two years. No further action was taken by the complainant against the cancellation of the FIR. However, in the year, 2013 the complainant filed CRM-M-11587- 2013 before this Court, challenging the Order of the Magistrate accepting the cancellation report. As the order passed by this Court would suggest; the Court was not quite in agreement with the challenge raised by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant withdrew that criminal miscellaneous petition on 26.07.2013, although with liberty to avail appropriate remedy as per law. It is thereafter, that the complaint, from which the present proceedings have arisen, was filed on 28.10.2013.

5. As is rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner the complaint filed now by the complainant is the verbatim copy of the complaint made before the police earlier. This also shows meticulous drafting by legal mind. In support of the complaint, the complainant examined the same Inderjit Marwaha as CW-1, as a witness of alleged extra judicial confession, his son Ajay Kumar as CW-2 and examined himself as CW-3. However no documentary evidence of any kind has been led by the complainant in preliminary evidence.

6. On the basis of these statements,, the Trial Court issued the order of summoning of the petitioner. However, the summoning of the petitioner was