JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia; J. - The present judgment shall dispose of CRM-M-53599-2018; CRM-M-54951-2018; CRM-M-57177-2018; CRM-M-54463-2018; CRM-M-947-2019; CRM-M-21528-2019 and CRR-2265-2019. The spinal connection of the complaints is similar in which the petitioners are an accused alongwith others and had been summoned in different complaints filed primarily by Om Parkash and in one FIR case discharged by the Additional Sessions Judge for the offences under IPC, therefore, the present set of cases have been taken up together. Facts of CRM-M-53599-2018

2. The present petition has been filed by Sukhbir Kataria, accused no.27 for quashing of Criminal Complaint bearing No.74285 dated 24.01.2013 (Annexure P-l) titled as 'Om Parkash Vs. Devender Kataria & others' filed under Section 420 , 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) and Section 31 of Representation of People Act, 1950. The order dated 21.07.2014 (Annexure P-3), vide which the petitioner alongwith others had also been summoned under the provisions of IPC only is also subject matter of challenge.

3. Challenge has been raised on the ground that disclosure of commission of any criminal offence is not made out and the proceedings are abuse of the process of Court. Further challenge has also been raised to the order dated 07.04.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram, whereby application for dismissal of the complaint and discharge of the petitioner had been dismissed and the order dated 06.08.2018 (Annexure P-7), whereby revision petition against the said order had also been dismissed.

4. The discharge of the petitioner which was rejected vide order dated 07.04.2018 was sought primarily on the ground that the complainant was the General Secretary of the Matdata Jagrook Manch, Gurgaon, which was not a registered Society under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012. The same had been repelled on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage and was only an attempt to delay the proceedings before the Trial Court and similar application had also been dismissed. The revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon of the petitioner was also rejected on 06.08.2018 (Annexure P-6), on the ground that the criminal proceedings could be set into motion by anyone and merely because the complainant as such was a convict in a murder case would not as such bar him from setting the criminal law into motion.

5. The gamut of the allegations against the petitioner contained in the complaint which has been filed are pertaining to the votes which were made on the basis of forged residence proofs by the other accused and on the basis of these forged documents, the votes were prepared and used in Gurgaon Vidhan Sabha Constituency. The allegations against the petitioner are only levelled in paragraph Nos.2 & 9 of the complainant.

6. A perusal of the same would go on to show that there were forged ration card bearing no.4285832 of House No.1250, which accused no.l to 7 had got made in their favour and thereafter got Electoral Identity Cards. Form no.6 was stated to have been used for making the votes and same was filled by the petitioner, accused no.27 in his own handwriting and declaration in the column had also been filled by the said accused. It is further the case of the complainant that accused no.l to 7 had made votes in different booths bearing no.133, 136 and 111. Reliance was placed upon the information provided by the election office under Right to Information Act, which was enclosed with the complaint. Averments were made regarding the other accused, who prepared their Electoral Identity Cards on the basis of forged residence proofs, but it is pertinent to mention that there is no reference to the petitioner, accused no.27 having participated in any manner qua preparation of residence proofs of other accused No.l to 7.

7. In paragraph no.9, it has been specifically stated that accused no.25 Sunita had prep