ORDER
V.S. Aggarwal, J
1. This is a petition filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 6 dated 16-10-1993 registered at Police Station Machhiwara, District Ludhiana with all subsequent proceedings including order framing the charge against the petitioners.
2. The relevant facts are that Balwant Singh was the Presiding Officer at the police station. Petitioners Bhupinder Singh and Mohinder Singh had raised objection on one lady voter namely, Avtar Kaur. They contended that she was not a voter of village Mithcwal. On interrogation it was found that she was agenuinc voter. Petitioners even raised objection over the vote of one Arvinder Singh. Even the said objection proved to be incorrect. On this both the petitioners started raising the noise. Petitioner-Bhupinder Singh snatched the ballot papers from Sohan Singh, Polling Officer and went out side. He tore them. Thereupon Mohinder Singh petitioner came on the table of the Presiding Officer and started picking up the ballot papers and tore them by putting them in his mouth. He was shouting that he will not permit the polling to continue. They grappled with Gursharan Singh and were controlled with the help of the police force.
3. A case was registered at the police station with respect to offences punishable Under Sections 171-A(1), 171-S and 171-P of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala on the challan being presented on 23-4-1993 held that prima facie case was drawn against the petitioners with respect to offences punishable Under Sections 171-F and 353, IPC. With respect to the said offences charges were framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on the same day. To the same the petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The petitioners assert that the police could not have investigated with respect to non-cognizable offences contemplated Under Section 171 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the proceedings as such deserves to be quashed. It was further asserted that Under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court could not entertain or take cognizance without the necessary permission and complaint contemplated Under Section 195, Cr.P.C.
6. In the reply filed, the State contests the petition. Preliminary objection has been taken that earlier the petitioners had filed an application for quashing the charge which was dismissed on 30-1-1996. The present petition, therefore, would not be maintainable. It was further asserted that police was competent to investigate offences punishable Under Section 353, IPC and if some non-cognizable offence is drawn along with it, the police is competent to investigate.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel on behalf of the State pointed that earlier the petitioners had preferred a petition namely Criminal Misc. 86021-M of 1994 for quashing the charge and the same was dismissed in this Court on 23-11-1994. Therefore, the present petition was not maintainable. The petitioners’ learned counsel on the contrary contended that keeping in view the fresh facts, there is no legal bar for filing of the fresh petition.
8. In the facts of the present case the said contention of the petitioners is totally without merit. Once a petition has been filed which is heard and decided that unless there are subsequent events or facts, a second petition must be termed to be an abuse of the process of the Court. Earlier the petition had been filed seeking quashing of the charges framed and while repelling the contentions, the plea of the petitioners failed. After dismissal of that petition, there is precious little brought on the record to permit this Court to hold that the second petition is maintainable. There are no new facts or events brought on the record. The second petition, therefore, is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court.
9. Even if the merits of the arguments are gone into, the same is without any substance. It was urged that the police could not investigate non-cognizable offences and reliance was placed on Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said section reads :-
155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such “cases.- (1) When information is given to an officer-in-charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the informant to the Magistrate.
(2) No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.
(3) Any police officer receiving such order may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer-in-charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.
(4) Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.
Perusal of the aforesaid shows that no police officer can investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of the Court. Sub-section (4) of Section 155 further makes it clear that where a case relates to two or more offences, of which at least one is cognizable, it shall be deemed to be a cognizable case. Section 353, IPC is a cognizable offence. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate reveals that the learned trial Court had framed charges against the petitioners with respect to offences punishable Under Sections 171-F and 353, IPC. Since the charge was framed with respect to an offence which was cognizable, the police could investigate the composite offence.
10. In all fairness it may be mentioned that the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of this Court to urge that the police could not investigate the said offence and the proceedings would be illegal when investigation was into a non-cognizable case. The case of Ram Kumar v. State, 1976 Chand LR (Cri) 67 is to that effect. To the same effect is the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ajit Singh v. State, 1990 (1) Chand LR (Cri) 580. The Supreme Court in the case of Keshav Lal Thakur v. State of Bihar, 1996 (2) Apex Court Journal 694 had also considered this aspect and concluded that with respect to non-cognizable cases investigation could only be conducted with the permission of the Court. However, none of these decisions came to the rescue of the petitioners because as mentioned above certain cognizable cases had been drawn and, therefore, the police was competent to investigate the entire case.
11. Con fronted with that position it was urged that as per allegations of the report, there was no case that could be drawn. The precise argument was that no criminal force had been used to attract Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. Under Section 353, IPC, a person must assault or use criminal force on any person being a public servant in execution of his duties as a public servant. This is one of the important ingredient of Section 353, IPC.
12. Expressions “force” and “criminal force” have been defined and explained Under Sections 349 and 350 of Indian Penal Code. The same read :-
349. Force.- A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other’s body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other’s sense of feeling :
Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways hereinafter described :
First.- By his own bodily power.
Secondly.- By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion taxes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person.
Thrdly.- By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.
350. Criminal force.- Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that persons consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.
It is obvious from bare reading of Sections 349 and 350 of the Indian Penal Code, reproduced above that it is using of force when a person brings substance in contact with any part of other’s body. It would be the criminal force because by using force if fear or annoyance is caused to the person or an offence is committed, it would be falling within the expression of “criminal force.
13. In the present case it is patent that criminal force had been used. The petitioners had picked up or snatched the ballot papers from the custody and possession of the public servants. They even had torn the same and in this process, they used the criminal force. Looking at the case of the petitioner from either angle it is clear that the argument advanced is without substance.
14. For these reasons, the petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed.
