JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Srivastava, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for the State. No one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 32253 of 2005 (Gopal v. Mahesh Chandra Agarwal and another) under Section 379 IPC, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad.

3. The aforesaid complaint case was registered pursuant to the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad vide order dated 5.12.2005 (Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.). The opposite party No. 2 Gopal son of late Ram Jani on 29.11.2005 filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. impleading the applicants and alleging inter alia that he is employed as a ''Bandi Rakshak'' in Pratapgarh District Jail and his permanent address is 13/15 Clive Road, Allahabad. He has been residing at their address since his childhood and has undergone schooling from the said address. The Bungalow No. 13/15 Clive Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad belonged to an Englishman W.H. Tuck and his father and mother late Ram Jani and late Shanti Devi worked for him and resided in a quarter of the bungalow. One Ravi Kumar, nephew, who was a student of Allahabad University also used to reside with them. The application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. further stated that he was employed at Pratapgarh District Jail, but used to visit Allahabad on holidays and reside in the quarter alongwith his family. A lot of household goods were kept in the quarter at Allahabad. On 20.10.2005 the nephew of the opposite party No. 2 was residing alone in the quarter and he locked the quarter and went to attend to his friend who was hospitalized and returned in the morning of 21.10.2005 at 7:00 a.m. only to find that the lock had been broken and his neighbours informed him that the applicants who were the owners of the bungalow had broken the lock and carried away all the household articles of the opposite party No. 2 and put their lock. A police report was tried to be lodged by the nephew, but the same was not registered whereafter information was sent by registered post to the police authorities, but the same also did not bear any fruits. Help was also sought from the Akhil Bhartiya Sri Balmiki Navyuvak Sangh which also did not bear any fruits and meanwhile the applicants demolished three rooms of the quarter. After not receiving any response from the authorities, the opposite party No. 2 is constrained to approach the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad by preferring the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

4. The application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was taken up by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 5.12.2005 and after recording the absence of the opposite party No. 2 opined that it was not a fit case to direct the police to register a case and investigate, but directed the case to proceed as a complaint case and fixed a date for recording of the statements of complainant (opposite party No. 2). Thereafter the statements of the complainant (opposite party No. 2) was got recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses Dinesh Kumar son of late Nankoo and Ravi Kumar son of Sri Kali Charan were got recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the learned C.J.M. vide order dated 25.8.2006 took cognizance of the complaint and summoned the applicants under Section 379 I.P.C.

Aggrieved the applicants have sought quashing of the entire proceedings of the complaint case.

5. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the applicants that the complaint has been filed on incorrect facts with mala fide intentions and oblique motive simply to harass and victimize them. The opposite party No. 2 has lodged the complaint consequent to the refusal of the applicants to give the outhouse to the nephew of the opposite party No. 2. He submits that the bungalow No. 13/15, Cliv