Crl. Misc. No. M- 23755 of 2008(O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M- 23755 of 2008(O&M)
Date of Decision:May 20, 2009
Rishipal and another
---Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and another
---Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
***
Present: Mr. Navneet Singh,Advocate,
for the petitioner
Ms. Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana
None for respondent No. 2
***
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) seeking
quashing of complaint (Annexure P-3) in FIR No. 285 dated 19.12.1993
under Sections 148/149/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/54/59
of Arms Act and summoning order dated 15.3.2002 (Annexure P-5 ) passed
by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad.
FIR in question was registered against the petitioners after
investigation of the case. The Investigating agency came to the conclusion
Crl. Misc. No. M- 23755 of 2008(O&M) -2-
that the petitioners were innocent. Thereafter, cancellaltion report was
submitted but the same was protested by respondent No. 2-Aflaton. The
Magistrate treated the case as a complaint case. Respondent no. 2 led his
preliminary evidence and on the basis of the same, summoning order
Annexure P-5 dated 15.3.2002 was passed. A perusal of order Annexure P-
5 revelas that complainant appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and
examined Subhash as PW-2, Bharat Singh as PW-3, Ramanjeet as PW-4,
Dr. C. Paul as PW-5. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class in paras 4 and 5
of order dated 15.3.2002(Annexure P-5) has observed as under:-
“4. PW-1 complainant Charan Singh deposed that on
19.12.2003 at about 1-00 P.M. He was working in fields along
with his brother Bhagat Singh; that his brother Amrish and
Ramjeet were also present there; that during this time Channi
son of Shamsher who was having gun in his hand. Ganga was
having maskat in his hand. Tara having katta and Rishi son of
Balbir was having gun and Radhey was also having gun come
towards complainant and gave a shot which hit on his back. He
reached at Civil Hospital where police recorded his statement
which is Ex. P1, PW-2 to PW-4 spoken to the tune of PW1.
5. PW5 Dr. C. Paul deposed that on 19.12.1993 he medico
legally examined Charan Singh. He proved MLR as Ex.
PW5/A, ruqa as Ex. PW5/B, police requests as Ex. PW5/C and
Ex. PW5/D, Ex. PW5/E police request regarding nature of
injury. He deposed that the injury was caused by a fire arm.
Hence the petitioners were ordered to be summoned to face
trial.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 23755 of 2008(O&M) -3-
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the
police had submitted the cancellation report as the petitioners were found
innocent during investigation, no case for summoning the petitioners to face
trial was made out.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has
submitted that now charge has been framed against the petitioners by the
trial court.
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, 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
Crl. Misc. No. M- 23755 of 2008(O&M) -4-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 the accused and with a view to
Crl. Misc. No. M- 23755 of 2008(O&M) -5-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 the 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 “
In the present case summoning order dated 15.3.2002
(Annexure P-5) was passed in the year 2002 after the complainant led his
preliminary evidence whereas the petition seeking quashing of FIR has been
filed in the year 2008. Now, charge has been framed against the petitioners
by the trial court by finding a prima facie case against the petitioners.
Merely because a cancellation report was filed against the petitioners, no
ground for quashing of the complaint is made out. Complainant has led
preliminary evidence in support of his case. No ground for interference is
made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
May 20, 2009
PARAMJIT