Sukhjinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

put your house on fire. In the meantime accused No.4 and 5 caught the complainant from his hair and accused No.1,2 and 3 started giving kick and fist blows to the complainant and his turban was torn. They gave further threats that today you put his house on fire so he could know that how the Sansi can live in the village of Jats. Complainant raised an alarm Mar-ta-mar-ta and after hearing the cries of the complainant Chanchal Singh son of Mela Singh, Sucha Singh son of Hardip Singh residents of village Kailey Kalan, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur came on the spot who has witnessed this occurrence with their open eye and saved the complainant from the accused. While going away all the accused gave threats to the complainant saying that Kuttia Sansia if you will not go with us by changing your mind within 2-3 days Crl. Misc. No. M- 23314 of 2010 (O&M) 3 then we will not allow you to live in the village and will kill you.

4. That complainant is a Government employee and the accused has given beatings to him, has spoken bad words against his caste and with the threats to throw out the complainant from the village the complainant has been insulted in the relatives and general public.

5. That I reported the matter to the Police Station at Dhariwal and also approached up to the higher officer but no action has been taken against the accused and the SHO turned back the complainant that all the officials are on election duty and after the election an action will be taken against the accused. After the election when the complainant again went to the police station then the police refused to take any action against them. After that complainant sent representation on 17.5.2004 to SSP Gurdaspur. The higher officers were also requested to take action against the accused but till date no action has been taken. So I am filing the present complaint. The accused by connivance with each other have spoken bad words against my caste and these words have been spoken with intention to expel me out from the village. The accused have also given beatings to me and have insulted me which is an excess against me and is illegal. The accused be summoned under Section 3/4 of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Act 1989 and Section Crl. Misc. No. M- 23314 of 2010 (O&M) 4 500/506/523 IPC and be punished accordingly." Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. The matter was duly investigated by the police and the allegations levelled by the complainant were found to be false. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police Crl. Misc. No. M- 23314 of 2010 (O&M) 5 officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on Crl. Misc. No. M- 23314 of 2010 (O&M) 6 the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” Ranjit Singh co-accused had filed CRM-M- No.53916 of 2006 seeking quashing of the complaint and vide order dated 16.12.2009 the said petition was partly allowed and the complaint in question as well as the summoning order qua the commission of offence under Section 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act') was quashed. However, the complaint as well as the summoning order for offence under Sections 500, 506, 323 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') were not quashed qua the said offences. A perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant has alleged that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused Kuldip Singh had caught hold of the complainant from his hair and thereafter the other accused had given kick and fists blow on the person of the complainant. The turban of the complainant got torn during the said incident. The accused also threatened the complainant that his house would be set on fire so that he could not live in the village. On alarm, raised by the complainant, Crl. Misc. No. M- 23314 of 2010 (O&M) 7 Chanchal Singh and Sucha Singh reached the spot. Thereafter, the accused left the place of occurrence while threatening the complainant. Keeping in view the fact that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, no ground for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order qua offences under Sections 500, 506,323 IPC is made out. Dismissed. September 20, 2010 Anand (SABINA) JUDGE