Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-5426 of 2008
Decided on : 21-07-2009
Sukhminder Singh and another
....Petitioners
VERSUS
Harcharan Singh and another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr. P.P.S.Duggal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Mandeep K Saajan, Advocate for the respondents.
MAHESH GROVER, J
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure praying for quashing of a complaint (Annexure P-4) and the
consequent summoning order dated 11.8.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the
Trial Court.
Complainant-respondent no.2 Atma Singh preferred a
complaint against the petitioners and number of other persons under the
provisions of Section 500, 506 IPC. The essence of the allegations against
the petitioners and other persons has been brought in para nos. 4, 5 and 6 of
the complaint which are extracted hereunder:-
“4 That accused no.1 namely Baljeet Singh has
given an application to the SSP, Faridkot against the
complainants and Baltej Singh s/o Bachan Singh, Baldev Singh
s/o Bachan Singh, Harcharan Singh s/o Bagh Singh, Jagdev
Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008 2
Singh s/o Ahala Singh, Balraj Singh s/o Hakam Singh, the
complaint was totally false and was full of mis statement.
There was no truth in it. This application was marked to SP(H),
Faridkot, because of this application the police went to the
houses of the complainants number of times, because of coming
of the police number of time at the residence, the reputation of
the complainants were hitted in the village and among the
relations, and the self respect was also shaked. The police
treated the complainants as accused, the police at the
application of the applicant has harassed the complainants and
others, many times the police forcibly has taken the
complainants to the police station as an accused from the
village, because of the various visits, at the office SP(H),
Faridkot, the people started looking us as accused, the
complainants also appeared as per call, before the office of the
SP(H) and they have to wait outside of the office of this officer,
the person of the area and other known of this officer, the
person of the area and other known persons started looking to
the complainants as accused.
5. That accused no.1 namely Baljeet Singh in conspiracy with
other accused persons and after the planning, to implicate the
complainants made out to totally false version, relating to
1.12.2006 made out a false story and gave this false
application to the office of SSP, Faridkot on 15.1.2007. The
above stated accused persons with conspiracy with each
other, some Shamlat land of panchayat, the suspended
Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008 3
Sarpanch Gurcharan Singh alongwith other accused has
illegally occupied it, because of this allegation possession
Gurcharan Singh and his other members have been
suspended, they don’t want to leave this illegal possession,
the Govt. has to construct water works upon this Shamlat
land the Govt. has issued the order for the vocation of the
illegal possession, regarding this the demarcation dated
1.12.2006, accused no. 7 and 8, in conspiracy with other
accused was conducted in the home and no information was
given to any other person. The complainants wants to vacate
this illegal possession of the panchayat land, on the
applications of the complainants, the demarcation on
6.6.2005 was done because of this grudge, accused no.1
namely Baljeet Singh conniving with other accused from
no.2 to no.10 gave a false application to the SSP, Faridkot
dated 15.1.2007.
6. That accused no.1 to 10 in conspiracy to take the revenge
from the complainants gave a false application against the
complainants and Baltej Singh s/o Bachan Singh, Baldev
Singh s/o Bachan Singh, Jagdev Singh s/o Ahala Singh,
Balraj Singh s/o Hakam Singh, this application for inquiry
was marked to SP(H) Faridkot. This application was
inquired into, the SP(H) Faridkot has called both of the
parties in his office, where accused no.1 to 10 has given the
false wrong statement allegating the complainants. Because
of conspiracy of the accused person and because of this false
Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008 4
application, the police came to call the complainants in the
village and in the house, in the village a gathering was
organized because of the false application we are worked all
in the gathering, because of this the complainants has to bear
insult, and the reputation was also hitted. The above stated
accused person in a conspiracy by stating wrongly has given
the false application. After inquiry the application was found
false and it was consigned.”
Apart from the above allegations there is no other allegation
against the petitioners. Learned Trial Court before whom the complaint was
presented after recording of the preliminary evidence summoned the
petitioners and other persons to stand trial.
In the instant petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has
contended that complaint is an abuse of the process of law. He has stated
that:-
(i) that a perusal of the complaint does not disclose of commission
of any offence
(ii) even if the allegations are taken to be correct, they does not
constitute commission of any offence by the petitioners and
other persons
(iii) that complaint is a counter blast to the complaint initiated by
accused Baljit Singh who had filed a complaint against Atma
Singh the present complainant under the provisions of Section
3 & 4 of the Prevention of Atrocities to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes Act.
(iv) that the petitioners were arrayed as accused by the complainant
Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008 5
because they were mentioned as witnesses in the complaint
preferred by Baljit Singh.
(v) that the complainant has effected the compromise with Baljit
Singh and withdrawn the complaint which is reflected from
Annexure R-4 and as a result thereof, there are no proceedings
against Baljit Singh whereas petitioners continue to face the
trial.
Learned counsel prays that in view of the aforesaid, the present
petition deserves to be accepted and the complaint and the consequent
summoning order dated 11.8.2007 deserve to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has
contended that there are specific averments in the complaint against the
petitioners which reveal the commission of a specific offence for which they
have been rightly summoned. Reliance was placed on judgment of this
Court in Kulbir Singh Uberoi versus M/s Kumar Industries (P&H) 2007
(3) RCR (Crl) 147 to contend that once cognizance has been taken by the
Trial Court in the complaint then the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C which
is to be used sparingly should not be ordinarily exercised and let the Trial
Court decide the matter.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is no doubt that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be
exercised sparingly but if the Court is confronted with a situation where
abuse of the power is implicit from the facts of the case then in such an
eventuality power under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised in order to
thwart such an abuse at the hands of the complainant. The provisions of
Section 482 Cr.P.C are extracted hereunder:-
Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008 6
Section 482:- Saving of inherent powers of
High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or
affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under
this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
In case State of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and
others AIR 1992 SC 604(1) following tests were laid down for considering
the quashing of a complaint:-
1. Where the allegations made in the First 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
Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008 7without an order of a 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 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.”
A perusal of the extract of the complaint which has been
reproduced above even if taken to be correct on the face of it does not reveal
commission of any offence. The allegations are simply vague and sweeping
in nature. There is no averment in the complaint as to how the petitioners
were instrumental in filing of the complaint by one Baljit Singh. The abuse
is further evident from the fact that Baljit Singh is the person who actually
initiated the complaint under provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the
Prevention of Atrocities to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008 8
against the complainant Atma Singh. Petitioners were merely cited as
witnesses in the said complaint and obviously the complaint was the
outcome of said Baljit Singh having mentioned the names of the petitioners
as witnesses. Perusal of Annexure R-4 reveals that the complainant has
settled the matter with Baljit Singh and has chosen to withdraw the
complaint against him while persisting with the proceedings against the
petitioners. In any eventuality if these circumstances are to be ignored the
facts still remains that the complainant was required to delineate the role of
each and every person so as to make out clearly that the offence stood
committed by them or prima facie established their complicity. But if the
complaint is silent on the role of the petitioners or the role of the individuals
who are so alleged to have committed the offence then even if the complaint
is permitted to go on it is unlikely to result in any conviction of person. So
far as looking on from this angle, complaint (Annexure P-4) and the
consequent summoning order dated 11.8.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the
Trial Court deserve to be quashed as persisting with the proceedings is
unlikely to lead to any conviction of any person.
Having regard to the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed
and complaint (Annexure P-4) and the consequent summoning order dated
11.8.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Trial Court are hereby quashed.
July 21, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge