JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia , J.

The present judgment shall dispose of three petitions i.e. CRM-M-39202-2018, CRM-M-54078-2018 and CRM-M-16754-2019, since the same are arise out of same set of proceedings.

CRM-M-39202-2018

2. The present petition has been filed by Sukhbir Kataria, who is the 6th accused in a private complaint bearing No.16 dated 10.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) filed by the respondent under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 31 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1950. Challenge has been raised under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) for quashing of the said complaint, in which the petitioner has been summoned vide order dated 23.03.2013 (Annexure P-2) by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon ( for short 'JMIC'), for the offences under IPC only, on the ground of being abuse of process of Court. Challenge has also been raised to the orders dated 07.04.2018 (Annexure P-4), wherein the application of the petitioner for dismissal of the complaint had been rejected by the JMIC and the order dated 06.08.2018 (Annexure P-6), wherein the revision petition against the said order was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon.

CRM-M-54078-2018

3. Petitioner-Devinder Singh Kadiyan, retired Assistant Food and Supply Officer, who is accused No.7 in the same complaint, also challenges the same set of orders, primarily on the ground that it is a malafide set of criminal proceedings to take political revenge from Sukhbir Kataria, who was MLA & Minister in Haryana Government as an independent candidate and that the complainant claimed himself to be the General Secretary of the Matdata Jagrook Manch, Gurgaon (for short 'Manch'), which is not a registered Society under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012. The complainant having a criminal background and had never any authority in law as such to initiate the proceedings. Apart from that admissibility of the evidence has also been questioned, on the basis of which the summoning order had been passed. Counsel has also placed reliance upon a order dated 18.09.2019 (Annexure P-11) in Crl. Complaint No.92 dated 21.02.2017 filed by the complainant in similar circumstances, in which the benefit of Section 197 Cr.P.C., was given to the petitioner and he was not summoned by the JMIC.

CRM-M-16754-2019

4. The present petition has been filed under Section 195 and 340 Cr.P.C., read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., by the complainant-Om Parkash against the accused No.6-Sukhbir Kataria, on the ground that a false declaration has been made supported by an affidavit, in support of the CRM-M-39202-2018, to the effect that the said accused was not in knowledge of the summoning order dated 23.03.2013 and he was never served in the said proceedings. It is submitted that an anticipatory bail application dated 09.04.2013 had been filed in which an order dated 11.04.2013 had been passsed in favour of the said accused and, therefore, it did not lie in his mouth to say that he was not aware of the said order. It is, thus, submitted that the proceedings have been stayed at a belated point of time on 27.11.2018 when the petitioner approached this Court in the year 2018 and which was not liable to be stayed on account of delay, since the accused as such had been appearing in the Court from 2013 to 2018.

5. In the response filed, the plea is taken that there has been inadvertent and immaterial inaccuracy in the pleadings and the whole petition has to be read as a whole and not piecemeal. The same would not justify prosecution and should not be instituted in a matter of course. There is no deliberate falsehood as the petition had been filed after the order dated 07.04.2018 passed by the Trial Court, had been upheld vide the impugned order dated 06.08.2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge, which is also subject matter of challenge. It was submitted that the complainant had filed 14 similar complaints having similar allegations a