Criminal Misc. No. M-30560 of 2008 v. State of Punjab

Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1 – State. Mr. I.S. Saggu, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing Criminal Complaint No. 73, dated 26.04.01 (Annexure P6), titled as, Criminal Misc. No. M-30560 of 2008 2 'Angrej Singh Vs. Jagir Singh and others', under Sections 148, 294-A, 323, 325, and 452 read with Section 149 IPC, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, the summoning order dated 14.07.08 (Annexure P7), and all the subsequent proceedings, arising out of the same, has been filed by the petitioners.

2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 17.06.98, the complainant/respondent No.2, was on duty, as Warder, in Civil Hospital, from 8.00 AM to 4.00 PM. It was stated that, at about

3.30/4.00 PM, Om Parkash, Warder, invited the complainant, Karam Singh, Daljit Singh and Jagdish, to his house, for having a cup of tea. It was further stated that all of them accepted the invitation. It was further stated that, at the relevant time, they sat on the chairs, in his (Om Parkash's) courtyard, as the electricity was off. It was further stated that, after sometime, Satnam Kaur and Paramjit Kaur, passed near them. Satnam Kaur, started abusing Daljit Singh and Jagdish Singh, by calling their names. It was further stated that Paramjit Kaur stopped Satnam Kaur, from doing so, and took her along. It was further stated that, when the members of the complainant party, came to the main gate and complained about Satnam Kaur to Balbir Kaur, Warder, she (Satnam Kaur) came out of the hospital and started abusing Daljit Singh, as also caught his beard, pulled out some hair of the same. It was further stated that, Balbir Kaur, Jagdish Singh, Harbans Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, and, Karam Singh, rescued Daljit Singh, from the clutches of Satnam Kaur with great difficulty. It was Criminal Misc. No. M-30560 of 2008 3 further stated that, in this manner, Satnam Kaur, hurt the religious sentiments of Daljit Singh, he being sikh, by catching his beard. It was further stated that, thereafter, the matter, was reported, to the Deputy Medical Superintendent, where too, Satnam Kaur, came and abused them. It was further stated that, then, on the asking of the Deputy Medical Superintendent, they went to their houses. It was further stated that, at about 6.30 PM, the complainant, was present, in his quarter, situated in the Mental Hospital, when Jagir Singh, armed with sota, Lakhwinder alias Lucky, armed with hockey, Satnam Kaur, Kashmir Kaur, and, Samittar Kaur, empty handed, forcibly entered therein. It was further stated that Samittar Kaur, raised an exhortation to catch the complainant, he being a big supporter of the President of the Warder staff. It was further stated that, consequently, Jagir Singh, gave a hockey blow, which landed on the left side of his neck. Lucky, gave two hockey blows, on his person, which hit, at the back of his neck and left ankle. Ravi, gave a sota blow,which hit his left hand. He also gave a sota blow, which hit the left wrist of the complainant. It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant, fell down. It was further stated that Satnam Kaur, caught hold of the complainant, of his hair and gave him slaps. Smittar Kaur and Kashmir Kaur, also caught hold of him from his legs and dragged him, on the ground. It was further stated that, even the complainant, was dragged by all the accused, on the road, as a result whereof, he suffered injuries, on his waist and back. It was further stated that, on raising alarm, by the complainant, Karam Criminal Misc. No. M-30560 of 2008 4 Singh, reached the spot, and witnessed the entire occurrence. It was further stated that, on the seeing Karam Singh, all the accused, fled from the spot, with their respective weapons. It was further stated that, while leaving the spot, the accused, threatened the complainant, that, in case, he again supported Daljit Singh, he would be killed. It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant, was got admitted, in Civil Hospital, where, he was medico-legally examined. It was further stated that, thereafter, the matter, was reported, to the Police, but to no avail. Ultimately, the aforesaid complaint, was filed.

3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the trial Court, summoned the accused, to face trial, for the offences, punishable under Sections 148, 323, 325 and 452 read with Section 149 IPC.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant petition, has been filed, by the petitioners.

5. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

6. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, on

17.06.98, petitioner No. 1, was on official duty, and, it was about

3.20 PM, when Daljit Singh, Supervisor, Angrej Singh, Warder, and, Jagdish Singh, Warder, caught hold of her, and gave injuries to her. He further submitted that Paramjit Kaur, intervened and separated petitioner No. 1, from the assailants. He further submitted that the assailants also followed petitioner No. 1, even, in the office and assaulted her there and tried to outrage her modesty. He further submitted that, petitioner No. 1, was given kick blow, in the Criminal Misc. No. M-30560 of 2008 5 abdomen. He further submitted that, petitioner No. 1, reported the matter, to the Medical Superintendent of the hospital, who forwarded the same, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, but, no action, was taken. He further submitted that ultimately, petitioner No. 1, filed Criminal Misc. No. 20515-M of 1998, which was disposed of, vide order dated 19.04.2000, as a result whereof, FIR No. 91 dated 10.05.2000, under Sections 148, 323, 353 and 354 read with Section 149 IPC, was registered, against the accused. He further submitted that the members of the complainant party, manipulated injuries, on their person, and filed a false complaint, against the petitioners as a counter-blast to the FIR. He further submitted that the complaint, was filed, with a malafide intention, just with a view, to harass the petitioners. He further submitted that the complaint, is nothing, but an abuse and misuse of the process of law and the Court. He further submitted that the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, did not apply judicial mind, to the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the evidence, on record, as there was no grievous injury, with blunt weapon, and, even then, the petitioners, were summoned, for the offence, punishable under Section 325 IPC.

7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It is trite that jurisdiction, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which saves the inherent power of the High Court, to make Criminal Misc. No. M-30560 of 2008 6 such orders, as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice, has to be exercised sparingly, and with circumspection. In exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry, whether the allegations, in the complaint, are likely to be established by the evidence or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate, when the evidence comes before him. Though, it is neither possible, nor advisable to lay down any inflexible rules, to regulate such jurisdiction, one thing, however, appears clear that it is that when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction, to quash a proceeding, at the stage of the Magistrate, taking cognizance of an offence, it is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations set out, in the complaint, or the charge-sheet, do not, in law constitute, or spell out any offence, and that resort to criminal proceedings, would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, or not. Even in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604(1), it was held that in the following category of cases, the High Court, in exercise of its powers, under Article 226 or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may interfere, in the proceedings, relating to cognizable offences, to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. However, this power should be exercised sparingly, and that too, in the rarest of rare cases: 1) Where the allegations made in the First Criminal Misc. No. M-30560 of 2008 7 Information Report or the complaint, 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 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 not 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 a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or Criminal Misc. No. M-30560 of 2008 8 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 a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused, and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Where allegtions in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases, enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, Criminal Misc. No. M-30560 of 2008 9 quashing of FIR was not justified.

8. Now adverting to the facts of the instant case, let us see, as to whether, the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is applicable, to the same, or not. At the time of deciding the petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court, is not required to go deep into the merits of the case. If the allegations, contained in the complaint or the FIR, constitute the offence, then the same, cannot be quashed. The probable defence of the accused, cannot be taken into consideration at that time. Such a defence, can certainly be set up by the accused, during the course of trial of the case. In the instant case, Angrej Singh, complainant, was medico-legally examined, on

17.06.98, the date of occurrence, and, as many as six injuries, were found, on his person, by the doctor. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, after going through the preliminary evidence, produced by the complainant, rightly came to the conclusion, that there were sufficient grounds for summoning the petitioners (accused), for the offences, punishable under Section 148, 323 and 452 read with Section 149 IPC. The instant complaint, which was instituted, by the complainant, and, the FIR, which was lodged, by petitioner No. 1, relate to the occurrence, on the same date. At this stage, it cannot be said, that the complaint, was filed, as a counter-blast, to the FIR, which was lodged, by petitioner No. 1, against the complainant and members of his party. The versions set up in the FIR and the complaint are yet to be tested during the trial of the case. During the course of trial, the Court, will decide, as to which version was true. Criminal Misc. No. M-30560 of 2008 10 At this stage, it would be too premature, to jump to any conclusion. Continuation of the complaint and the summoning order, therefore, cannot be said to be the abuse of the process of Court, in any manner. The same are not liable to be quashed.

9. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-30560 of 2008, is dismissed, at the same time holding that the petitioners and their co-petitioner (non-applicants), shall be deemed to have been summoned for the offences, punishable under Sections 148, 323 and 452 read with Section 149 IPC only, and not for the offence, under Section 325 IPC; as the same is not constituted as per the material, placed, on the record. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case.

10. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned, immediately.

03.03.2010 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE