Cr.Misc. M 2280 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Cr.Misc. M 2280 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION: 15.1.2008
Sohan Lal and others
......PETITIONERS
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another.
......RESPONDENTS
PRESENT: Mr.Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for respondent
M.M.S.BEDI,J.
Sohan Lal and three others have filed this petition for quashing
of complaint dated 21.11.2006 (Annexure P-3) filed by complainant-
respondent pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Jalandhar and summoning order dated 15.9.2007 ( Annexure P-4)
passed by the said Magistrate requiring the petitioners to face the trial in
the said complaint.
As per the allegations levelled by the complainant-respondent
No.2 in the complaint, petitioner No.1 and four others had threatened her to
vacate the house allegedly purchased by her for a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs. On
12.11.2006 at about 7 PM when the complainant along with her mother had
come to Kartarpur at Gurdwara Gangsar from Nakodar, at about 8 PM
Cr.Misc. M 2280 of 2008 2
while she was standing in front of the said Gurdwara, all the petitioners
surrounded them. The petitioner No.4 gave a lalkara to catch hold of
complainant and kill her to take possession of her house. All the petitioners
gave slaps on the face of the complainant and her mother and she fell
down. Petitioners 1 and 3 caught hold of the complainant from her breast
and used derogatory words. The petitioners 2 and 4 and non petitioner
Shanti had caught hold her from arms and legs, whereas petitioners 1and 3
had snatched her chain by using criminal force.
The complainant was abused with filthy abuses. The
complainant examined herself as CW 1, Gurnam Singh as CW2 and her
mother Satya as CW 3 to substantiate the allegations in the complaint,
resulting in summoning of the petitioners and one another.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners
is that petitioners 3 and 4 are settled in U.K. and they have appointed
Kishan Dass as their attorney. Petitioner No.3 is aged 83 years and
petitioner No.4 is aged 81 years, respectively. They are permanent
residents of U.K. whereas petitioners 1 and 2 are son-in-law and daughter
of petitioners 3 and 4. Petitioner No.3 had asked the complainant to vacate
his house as he wanted to settle in India in the year 2006 but she did not
vacate the said premises. In order to evade the eviction proceedings, the
complainant has adverted to the device of filing a false complaint against
the petitioners.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
considered the documents placed on the record.
The occurrence in the present case is of 12.11.2006 at
Kartarpur. Petitioners 3 and 4 were not present in India as is apparent from
Cr.Misc. M 2280 of 2008 3
their passports, which show that they had taken a flight for England from
Amritsar on 8.9.2006 and reached England same day at Birmingham and
they had returned back to India on 22.12.2006. The relevant extract of the
passports of petitioners 3 and 4 has been attached with the petition as
Annexures 3 and 4. Petitioner No.3 has filed an eviction petition u/s 13 B
of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act before the Rent Controller,
Nakodar, which fact has not been denied in the reply filed by complainant-
respondent . Regarding the entries in the passports of petitioners 3 and 4,
the complainant has averred that the entries made in the passports are not
true and that the petitioners 3 and 4 were present at the time of the
occurrence.
I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case.
The travelled documents pertaining to petitioners 3 and 4 have been
prepared during the course of routine official business and presumption of
truth is attached to the documents. It is not the case of respondent that
the entries of departure and arrival have been fabricated. The presumption
of truth is attached to the passport entries. The complaint filed by
respondent is apparently a mala fide act on account of eviction
proceedings having been filed against her by petitioners 3 and 4.
This Court in Cr.Misc. 5062 M of 2007 (Manjinder Singh
Bajwa vs Dara Singh ) decided on 4.12.2007 has observed that when a
fact has been established on the basis of the documents like passport,
presumption of truth can be attached to the same especially when no
plausible explanation is put forth contrary to the facts mentioned in the
official documents. It is abundantly clear that petitioners 3 and 4 were not
present in India. The complaint prima facie appears to be false and mala
Cr.Misc. M 2280 of 2008 4
fide qua petitioners 3 and 4 (Bhagat Ram and Chinti), as such the same is
quashed qua them. It will be open to petitioners 1 and 2 to take the
advantage of the false claim put forth by the complainant-respondent . The
trial court is directed to conclude the proceedings, initiated on the
complaint of complainant-respondent within a period of one year after the
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With the above observations the petition stands disposed of.
January 15 ,2006 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE