Crl.Misc.No.M-14592 of 2010 1 v. State of Haryana & Hardeep Singh

relevant for disposal of the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P6) is that in the wake of the statement of complainant Hardip Singh son of Mahinder Singh, the instant case was registered against the accused. The contents of the statement, which formed the basis of FIR, read as under:- “Statement of Hardip Singh son of Mahinder Singh caste Jat Sikh resident of theri Thana Sadar Fatehabad aged 37 years Mobile 94668-59167 stated that I am resident of above said address and Truck No.RJ-14-1G/4668 is my own Truck and I have purchased this truck from Manjit Singh son of my aunt (Bua) and I myself drive this truck. Today at about 3 O'clock I was coming in my above numbered Truck with Government wheat 450 bags loaded in it from Nagpur Mandi to Fatehabad. When I reached Kainchi Chowk Hanspur Fatehabad at that time a white colour Alto Car came in front of my truck and the driver of that car made me stop by abruptly applying his brakes in front of my car. I alongwith my companion conductor Baldev asked as to what is the matter and four persons alighted from the Alto Car and forcibly dragged me out from the driver seat of the truck and snatched the key. All four of them started beating me and my conductor with slaps and fist blows and they were talking in between them that Surender Sat Roria shoot him. Then Surender said not here we will shoot him after Crl.Misc.No.M-14592 of 2010 2 reaching Jaipur. Then Bhanwar Singh said that Sandeep Balsamanthia what are you looking hit him and one person more who was giving slaps and fist blows to my conductor, while saying all this after threatening us for hitting us with bullet, forcibly ran away after snatching the truck loaded with Government wheat. One person whose name they did not spelt took away the Alto Car and ran away alongwith the truck. All these four persons snatched away the truck from me which was loaded with 450 bags of Government wheat forcibly after threatening me. At that time no other person or vehicle came to the spot. They ran away from the spot immediately after snatching the truck. While running away they were saying that Bhanwar Singh we will go to Jaipur then another person said Sandeep we will go to Satrod then the person who was addressed with the name of Bhawar Singh said that we will go to Surender Balsambandh. That after saying this they ran away with the Government wheat loaded truck towards Fatehabad City and Alto Car was accompanying them. That all these four persons have taken away a truck of government wheat forcibly from me after threatening me. Legal action be taken against them. I searched for my truck here and there in the Fatehabad City at many places but it could not be traced out. I alongwith my conductor was going to police station for lodging report. But you met me at Ratia Chungi. I got my statement recorded with you. Heard. It is correct. Sd/- Hardeep Singh Attested Ramesh Kumar ASI I/C P.P.G.N.Pura dt.20.4.10.”

2. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, the prosecution claimed that on the fateful day, all the accused conspired together and in furtherance of their common intention committed the robbery by putting complainant Hardeep Singh and his companion Baldev Singh conductor, in fear of instant death, wrongful restraint and induced them by putting in fear to deliver their truck. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.190 dated 20.4.2010 (Annexure Crl.Misc.No.M-14592 of 2010 3 P6) on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under section 392 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station City Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.

3. Instead of cooperating in the investigation and submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court, the petitioner straightway has filed the present petition for quashing of FIR (Annexure P6), invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.PC.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition.

5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the complainant purchased the truck in question by obtaining loan and executed the hire purchase agreement, so, no offence under section 392/34 IPC is made out against the petitioner, is neither tenable nor the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Charanjit Singh Chadha v. Sudhir Mehra 2001(4) RCR (Criminal) 192 are at all applicable to the present controversy at this stage, wherein the agreement executed by the parties was to the effect that the hirer would not become owner of the property until he pays the entire instalments. The hire purchase agreement in law is an executory contract of sale and confers no right in rem on hirer until the conditions for transfer of the property to him have been fulfilled. Therefore, having interpreted the various terms and conditions of hire purchase agreement and on the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, it was ruled that re- possession of the goods as per the term of the agreement may not amount to criminal offence.

6. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner at this preliminary stage of investigation.

7. Such thus being the position on record, now the core question that Crl.Misc.No.M-14592 of 2010 4 arises for determination in this petition is as to whether the FIR deserves to be quashed in such a heinous crime or not?

8. The scope of quashing an FIR as envisaged under section 482 Cr.PC is well settled. In case on the bare reading, the offence is made therefrom, no order can be made for quashment. The FIR can only be quashed in rarest of the rare cases if it is proved that the same was lodged maliciously or vexatiously in order to wreck vengeance, as in that case, the FIR amounts to the abuse of the process of the Court. Reliance in this connection can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which is being followed in the recent judgments.

9. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and legal position, to me, no ground for quashing the FIR (Annexure P6) is made out in this context.

10. As is evident from the record that the instant case is not a simple case of violation of terms of the hire purchase agreement, but there are direct very serious and glaring allegations against the petitioner and his other co-accused that they have illegally detained the truck, dragged the complainant (driver) and Conductor Baldev Singh from it and mercilessly gave beatings to them. The remaining accused exhorted Surender accused to kill the complainant, but he replied that he will not kill him (complainant) here and they would kill him after reaching Jaipur. They forced them to part with the truck under the constant fear of death and thus committed the robbery.

11. True, it may be that the truck in question was purchased on hire purchase agreement, but the accused cannot possibly be permitted to take law into their own hands to settle the loan dispute themselves by using criminal force and to commit criminal offence of robbery in the manner described here-in-above. There is prima facie ample evidence, involving the complicity of the petitioner, in the commission of heinous crime. There is nothing on the record even to suggest Crl.Misc.No.M-14592 of 2010 5 remotely that the FIR was got lodged by the complainant maliciously or vexatiously in order to wreck any vengeance. Therefore, no ground to interfere in the investigation of the police or to quash the FIR is made out in exercise of limited inherent jurisdiction of this Court, particularly when all the pleas raised by the petitioner in this petition are factual in nature and can only be appreciated by the trial Court after some evidence is led by the prosecution during the course of trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to satisfy this Court that the present case falls within the ambit of parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal's case (supra). Hence, the contrary arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances.

12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the present petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. However, it is made clear that nothing recorded herein above would reflect on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition.

16.9.2010 AS (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge