H.C. Goel, J.
(1) One K.L. Dutta had filed a suit, being suit No. 409/80, against Behari Lal Chhabra for possession of the plot of land bearing No. Vb 64B, Virender Nagar, New Delhi. A decree for possession of that plot of land was passed in his favor by Mr. V.K. Malhotra, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, on March 28, 1981. The decree holder took out execution of that decree. That was resisted by the judgment debtor and the possession of that plot could not be delivered to the said decree holder. Thereafter Smt. Mohan Devi through her attorney Shri K.L. Dhall filed a suit, being Suit No. 30/82 in the court of Mr. P.D. Jarwal, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, on January 15, 1982 for a declaration that the aforesaid decree was not executable against her together with a decree for mandatory injunction restraining the decree holder from executing the decree against her plot No. A-47, Virender Nagar, New Delhi. In this suit she imp leaded Shri Krishan Lal Dutta and Shri Brahm Prakash Dutta who is the son of Shri Krishan Lal Dutt and is an advocate by profession. These persons were imp leaded as defendants No. 2 and Sand the Delhi Development Authority being defendant No 1 in that suit, besides some other defendants. The plant was signed and verified by Shri K.L. Dhall as the attorney of Smt. Mohan Devi. Certain allegations were made by the plaintiff in that plaint. Shri B P. Dutta on receipt of summons and a copy of the plaint of that suit filed a complaint under Sections 500/109/120B of the Indian Penal Cede against K.L. Dhall and Smt. Mohan Devi in the court of Mr. D.S Pawaria, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Mr. Pawaria after perusing the averments in the complaint and after recording the statement of the complainant Shri B.P. Dutta summoned K.L. Dhall, petitioner, under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated August 3, 1982. The petitioner appeared before the Court of the leered Magistrate in pursuance of the summons served on him and participated in the proceedings for some time. An application was moved by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate for dropping the proceedings against him. That application was dismissed by the court vide its order dated January 19, 1983 holding that in his opinion it would not be proper to outright acquit the accused at that stage without giving him notice as provided under Section 251 of the Criminal procedure Code and notice of accusations was directed to be served on the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner moved the present petitionunder Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code on November 26, 1984 for quashing the Proceedings as pending against him in the aforesaid court of the learned Magistrate under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2) The petition has been opposed by Shri B.P. Dutta, respondent. I have heard Mr. B L. Chawla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Muknl Rohatgi, learned counsel for the respondent. The plaintiff Smt. Mohan Devi, among others, had made allegations against the present respondent which are reproduced in para 6 of the complaint, a copy of which has been filed on the record of this petition. Shri B.P. Dutta, respondent was not a party to the suit in which the decree for possession of the plot No. VB-64B, Virender Nagar, New Delhi was passed, nor in the execution proceedings in which Smt Mohan Devi contends that the decree could not be executed against her plot No. A-47, Virender Nagar, New Delhi. He has been added as a co-defendant along with his father Shri K.L. Dutta in that suit. Among others, it is alleged in the complaint that the entire manipulation for execution of the said decree was being made by defendant No. 3 i.e. B P. Dutta respondent who is the son and attorney of defendant No. 2 and has entered into legal profession and is trying to capitalise the same. It is further stated that in fact an attempt was made by them on 23-5-1981 when they brought the court bailiff and warrants of possession of plot No. VB-64B, Virender Nagar, New Delhi at the suit property of the plaintiff, but they could not succeed in their evil designs as the intending purchaser was present on the spot. It is also alleged that defendant No. 2 i.e. the father of Shri B.P. Dutta, respondent had filed various frivolous suits against number of persons in respect of plots situated in Virender Nagar, New Delhi, in connivance and collusion with his son defendant No. 3, taking undue advantage of his profession, and they are causing harassment to the actual owners and persons in possession and involving them in frivolous litigations. These averments clearly make an insinuation on Shri B P. Dutta, respondent and on his position as an advocate. The plaint was filed in the court of the Sub Judge and there is thus publication of the same. I am of the view that there was sufficient ground for the learned Magistrate for proceeding against the present petitioner under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and for summoning him there under. Needless to say that the petitioner has full opportunity of contesting the complaint of the respondent before the court concerned. It may also be pointed out here that the petitioner has come at a very late stage of the proceedings. He submitted to the order summoning him as an accused person in the case and participated in the proceedings for a pretty long time. It was submitted by Mr. Chawla that it would be open to the respondent to approach the civil court for striking out the alleged defamatory averments made by the plaintiff in the suit and that under these circumstances it was not open to the respondent to file a complaint for defamation against the petitioner. It is certainly open to the respondent to have recourse to the provisions of Order Vi Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure for getting the impugned averments struck out from the plaint. I am, however, unable to see as to how that itself operates as a bar for the respondent's setting in motion the criminal law which is a separate and independent remedy available to an aggrieved person in such a situation. It was next submitted by Mr. Chawla that the learned Magistrate should have waited for the result of the civil litigation and he should not have summoned the petitioner till the civil suit was disposed of by the civil court. There is no merit in this submission. As mentioned by me already above, both the matters namely the civil suit as pending in the civil court and the complaint as filed by the respondent before the learned Magistrate are separate and independent proceedings and they can go on side by side. In my opinion there is no bar to the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence which he may be of opinion to have been committed by a person whose matter is still pending in a civil court as is the situation in the present case. In the end the petition is dismissed.