1 CRM-M-30092-2014 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 138 CRM-M-30092-2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.07.2026 RATTAN SINGH PETITIONER VERSUS ALKA DALAL RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the respondent. *** Shalini Singh Nagpal, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner seeks quashing of criminal complaint bearing No.468 AB/25.4.13/01.07.13 titled ‘Smt. Alka Dalal Vs. Ratan Singh’ and order dated 29.05.2013 of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram summoning him to face trial under Section 500 IPC. 2. Criminal complaint under Section 499 and 500 IPC was instituted by respondent against the petitioner alleging that she was widow of a martyr who sacrificed his life in Kargil War and was residing in Malibu Towne, Gurugram with her family since 2001. She was elected Secretary, Resident Welfare Association, Malibu Towne in 2009-10 and President of the Resident Welfare Association in 2011-12. In 2010-11, accused (petitioner), who was Treasurer was found to have embezzled ₹33,030/-. In the general body meeting of the Association, it was unanimously decided to take action against him unless the money was returned back. Accused returned ₹28,980/- only on which account, a resolution was passed against him and he started nursing grudge against her. He filed an application in Police Station, Sadar Gurugram alleging that she had given him beatings but the allegations were HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.28 19:27 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 CRM-M-30092-2014 (O&M) found false. In 2012, when complainant/respondent was again elected President of the Resident Welfare Association, he moved an application to the police levelling false allegations against her which were inquired into. Accused sent false applications to the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, the Chief Secretary, Haryana, Governor of Haryana, the President of India through e-mail. In the complaint to the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, he stated as follows: "..We the people of Malibu Towne are living under the life threat by the builder M/s Malibu Estate Pvt. Ltd. Alka Dalal, President of the Residents Welfare Association (famous for gundagardi, awargardi, prostitution and all impossible unlawful and unwanted activities are her favorite hobbies known as Bhuaji, Ajay Dalal (brother of Alka Dalal and known criminal. As an advocate, who is well known in the District Courts, Gurgaon, as a rowdy of sorts and had once abuses even A Judge of the District Courts), Sanjeev Sherawat (criminal, keeps gun and gunda tatva with him. terrorize kids and female many times in Malibu Town with gun, famous as gunwala, History Sheeter), O.P. Kedia (famous for many financial frauds, cheating and big time crook)….” 3. In preliminary evidence, complainant/respondent examined herself as CW1, Sumeet Ahuja as CW2 and Ajay Jaggi as CW3. Vide order dated 29.05.2013, the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram summoned the petitioner to face trial for the offence under Section 500 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was more than 85 years of age. He along with other residents of Malibu Towne, Gurugram was being harassed by the developers of Malibu Estate and also by the office bearers of the Resident Welfare Association, who were trying to cover the green area in the locality. The respondent and her brother, who were practicing advocates, tried to illegally stop protest of the residents on which HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.28 19:27 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 CRM-M-30092-2014 (O&M) account, petitioner made representation against their illegal actions. The complaint under Sections 499 and 500 IPC was filed to harass the petitioner with ulterior and oblique motive. During inquiry before the police authorities, respondent admitted her fault and compromised the matter. She stated before the Inquiry Officer that she no longer wanted to take any action against the petitioner as the matter had been settled and the inquiry was closed. Thereafter, petitioner withdrew his complaint on 07.03.2013. The factum of the compromise was cleverly concealed by the respondent in the criminal complaint in order to procure favourable order and the complaint was nothing, but an abuse of the process of the Court. It was argued that though, complaint to the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi was sent from petitioner’s e-mail address, the signatures on the e-mail did not belong to him. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the criminal complaint and summoning order dated 29.05.2013 be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer submitting that the complaint and order dated 29.05.2013 could not be quashed on account of alleged compromise in the Police Station as prima facie commission of offence under Sections 499 read with Section 500 IPC was disclosed and made out. He prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. The complaint made by the petitioner against the respondent to National Human Rights Commission, Delhi, contents of which have not even been disputed, prima facie, discloses commission of offence under Section 499 IPC punishable under Section 500 IPC. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram has recorded satisfaction that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused (petitioner) and ordered issuance of process. Quashing of the complaint is impermissible even if it is accepted that a compromise was indeed arrived at between the parties in Police Station, HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.28 19:27 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 CRM-M-30092-2014 (O&M) Sadar Gurugram. The contents of the letter, addressed to the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, are prima facie defamatory, intending to harm the reputation of respondent/complainant, a lady Advocate. Petitioner concedes that the defamatory letter was sent from his e-amil address claiming that the letter did not bear his signatures. The question whether the letter in question was published by the petitioner is essentially a matter of trial and cannot be gone into in these proceedings. 7. Inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings are to be exercised sparingly, in the rarest of rare cases and not as a matter of course or routine. Since, there is a factual foundation for summoning the petitioner for the offence under Section 500 IPC, petitioner cannot be allowed to short-circuit the criminal law by invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Sufficient evidence was available before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram to proceed against the petitioner and it is not a fit case to quash the complaint or the summoning order dated 29.05.2013. The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. 8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 27.07.2026 HS.CHAUHAN Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No HARPREET SINGH CHAUHAN 2026.07.28 19:27 I agree to specified portions of this document