1. This is an application to quash a complaint filed as long ago as the 29th of March 1950 which has been pending since the 3rd of April 1950 in the Court of an Honorary Magistrate, second class, Old Delhi. The complaint is headed with an imposing list of sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely Sections 448, 379 and 426 all read with Section 120B, and is against two persons. The complaint recites that the first accused, the present applicant before me, took on lease the premises No. 24, Curzon Road, New Delhi, in the year 1935 from the then owner for a period of one year. He later renewed the tenancy until the year 1939 and thereafter he is said to have remained in possession without executing any docu-ment. A notice to vacate was given to him in 1942 but he is said to have remained there illegally with the intention of annoying the owner. The property was purchased by the Sterling General Insurance Company, Limited, New Delhi, on the 18th of July 1949, and the complaint was filed by an employee of that Company. The only further statement in the complaint is that the two accused entered into a conspiracy at Old Delhi to remain in possession of the property and to annoy and intimidate the Company. It is said that in pursuance of that conspiracy they 'began to damage the property so far so that they cut the tress on the premises and removed the same and did other mischief by damaging the property.'
2. On this extraordinarily vague complaint, by which jurisdiction was given to an Old Delhi Magistrate only by assertion of conspiracy at Old Delhi, the learned second class Magistrate recorded an equally vague statement of the complainant on the 3rd of April and on the 17th of April equally vague statements of two Pathan witnesses. The main burden of these statements was that the two accused were annoying the Company by refusing to give up possession. The Magistrate then issued warrants under Sections 448 and 426, Indian Penal Code. The present applicant appeared on the 5th of May but the other accused was not served and there, were adjournments until the 3rd of July when the other accused appeared and was promptly given up by the complainant. All case of conspiracy therefore disappeared. Thereafter the present applicant made an application to be exempted from personal appearance on the ground of illness. This application was decided by an order of the 4th of December 1950 when the Magistrate held that the exemption could not be granted and he stated that he would decide the plea as to the frivolous nature of the complaint after recording evidence. The applicant then made an application to the Sessions Judge who on the 4th of May 1951 rejected it and the applicant then came to this Court.
3. It is true that the applicant has in somemeasure been responsible for the delay of nearly two years since this complaint had beenfiled, out I think now that the matter has cometo receive consideration I should interfere toprevent what obviously is abuse of the processof the Criminal Courts. The complaint on itsface merited summary dismissal and the inquiry held before the issue of warrants in noway' improved the complaint. The only vestigeof accusation of a criminal offence lay in thehopelessly vague assertion of cutting trees. Itis necessary for complainants seeking to invokethe process of the Court against persons tomake their allegations in such precise mannerthat the accused person can understsand whatcase he has to meet and that those allegationscould be made the subject of a charge. I thinkin the circumstances I should not allow theseproceedings for which, as I have said, no justification appears to exist and by which no definite accusation is made, to continue further.I therefore accept the application and quashthe complaint. The papers to be returned.