Punjab-Haryana High Court
G.S.Ahluwalia And Others vs Surinder Pal Jetley And Another on 1 June, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-21125 of 2010 (O&M) [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-21125 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.06. 2012
G.S.Ahluwalia and others ......................... Petitioners
Versus
Surinder Pal Jetley and another ................. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri
1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Gaurave Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. N.P.Jetley, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Kartar Singh, DAG, Haryana.
...
RITU BAHRI, J.
Challenge is to the order dated 7.6.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face a complaint under Section 330, 341 IPC read with Section 34/120-B IPC.
Crl. Misc. No. M-21125 of 2010 (O&M) [ 2 ] The complaint was filed by Surinder Pal Jetley alleging that the RPF officials of Saharanpur were carrying a grudge against him on account of registration of a case bearing No. CC 26 dated 13.9.1989. In this complaint registered by the RPF officials the complainant was exonerated and the RPF officers were facing a trial at Saharanpur. A false complaint was registered bearing CC No. 32 dated 12.10.2009 under Section 3 R.P. (UP) Act, Police Station RPF Post, Ambala Cantt. On 13.10.2009, when it was elections day of Haryana Legislative Assembly, one Onkar Singh, son of Shri Pritpal Singh, had come to take him for casting vote at about 8 AM. At this time, the officials of RPF came and took the complainant in a vehicle in the presence of his father Onkar Singh for inquiry. The complainant was taken to RPF barracks where he was beaten up and threatened. He was asked to sign number of blank papers and printed proformas.
After giving him repeated blows with baton and threatened to torture him by putting his hands and feet in boiled water managed to get signatures on blank papers and printed proformas.
In this background, the complaint was filed. He was medically examined by the doctors at Civil Hospital, Ambala. Apart from other injuries he suffered from traumatic perforation of right ear drum which resulted in loss of 35-
Crl. Misc. No. M-21125 of 2010 (O&M) [ 3 ]
40% of hearing ability.
After going through the testimony of the
complainant and Medico Legal Reports of Dr. V.K.Bansal, Dr. Rishi Gautam MS (ENT), Onkar ENT Clinic, Amabla City the court has passed the orders summoning the present petitioners. A finding has also been given that there is no requirement of a sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. as when the injuries were caused to the complainant, the officials were not discharging any public duties.
Counsel for the petitioners has challenged this order on the ground that before taking any cognizance of the offence the petitioners were entitled to a notice of 3 months as contemplated under Section 20(3) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 which contemplates that a 3 months notice of the complaint in writing shall be given to the person concerned and his superior officer atleast one month before the commencement of such proceedings. The object of Section 20 of the Act is to protect the members of the force while discharging their official duties if any criminal or civil proceedings are initiated against them. On 12.10.2009 a criminal complaint No.32 under Section 3 of the Railway Protection (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 was registered by the Railway Protection Force against the complainant. Surinder Pal lJetley, Amrik Singh, Keshar Singh and Naresh Kumar were arrested. They were produced Crl. Misc. No. M-21125 of 2010 (O&M) [ 4 ] before the Special Railway Magistrate after medical examination. On 13.10.2009 the application of complainant Surinder Pal Jetley and his co-accused Keshar Singh for medical re-examination was dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2009 (Annexure P3). While dismissing their application, it was observed that not even a photocopy of the MLR has been annexed with the application to show that they required a medical re-examination.
The application was dismissed and the accused were remanded to judicial custody. The present complaint is a counter-blast making false allegations after getting opinions from different doctors. He has submitted that the complainant and his co-accused have been convicted by CJM, Ambala. Father of respondent No.1 and co-accused Keshar Singh have retired from Railways and they have formed a gang and are committing theft of railway property.
Heard counsel for the parties.
The short question for consideration is that as per the allegation in the complaint on 13.10.2009 on the date of elections of Haryana Legislative Assembly when Onkar Singh, son of Shri Pritpal Singh, had come to cast his vote, the officials of RPF took him in a vehicle for inquiry. He was taken up to the RPF barracks and was beaten up. This act of the RPF officials will not amount to discharge of their official Crl. Misc. No. M-21125 of 2010 (O&M) [ 5 ] duties. Therefore, the requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. at this stage does not arise. The plea of the petitioners that they have not been given notice of 3 months as per Section 20(3) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 is not available to them as they were not discharging their official duties when they had taken Onkar Singh to the barracks and subjected him to beatings and got blank papers signed from him. Section 20(3) of the Act is reproduced hereunder:-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force any legal proceeding, whether civil or criminal, which may lawfully be brought against any superior officer or member of the Force for anything done or intended to be done under the powers conferred by, or in pursuance of, any provision of this Act, or the rules thereunder shall be commenced within three months after the act complained of shall have been committed and not otherwise; and notice in writing of such proceeding and of the cause thereof shall be given to the person concerned and his superior officer at least one month before the commencement of such proceeding."
The medico-legal reports of Dr. V.K.Bansal and Dr. Rishi Gautam MS (E&T) were examined before summoning the present petitioners.
The object of Section 20(3) of the Act is to protect the RPF officials in discharging their official duties. Assault Crl. Misc. No. M-21125 of 2010 (O&M) [ 6 ] causing hurt cannot be part of their official duty. If a person while performing his official duty to arrest a person, he may try to escape, then minimum amount of force may be necessary to hold him or to keep him. Force can also be used if the offender tries to abuse or assault a police officer, then the police officer may in self-defence assault him.
In the facts of the present case, the situation is otherwise. A person who has gone to cast his vote was picked up for inquiry. Thereafter, he was beaten up in the RPF barracks. The summoning orders have been passed after going through the testimony of the complainant and medico-legal reports of Dr. V.K.Bansal and Dr. Rishi Gautam MS (E&T). The petitioners are at liberty to take up all the pleas in defence whether the assault amounted to discharging their official duties or not. They can claim the protection under Section 20(3) of the Act only at the time of final arguments after the trial.
The summoning orders dated 7.6.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt, requires no interference.
The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
01.06.2012 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE