Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singh @ Sunny Etc vs State Of Haryana Etc on 14 November, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-28254 of 2013
Date of Decision: November 14, 2014
Sandeep Singh alias Sunny and another
...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Subhash Godara, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent-State.
Mr.P.K.Ganga, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 12.08.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide which the application under Section 91 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant-respondent No.2 was allowed and the petition filed by the petitioners under Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C. was dismissed and further challenging the order dated 12.08.2013 vide which the learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioners without appreciating the evidence and for quashing all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. VINEET GULATI 2014.11.26 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-28254 of 2013 -2-
It is mainly stated in the petition that a false FIR No.224 dated 03.10.2008 under Sections 447, 148, 147 and 506 IPC and under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) was registered on the basis of application given by Gejo, in which it is stated that on 29.09.2008, Sandeep alias Sunny, Mandeep sons of Darshan Singh caste Jat Sikh residents of village Ganga along with 40-50 unidentified persons forcibly entered her fields and ousted her from there and abused her with the name of her caste and called her 'churi' and also threatened to kill her. They further said to the complainant that they will not leave her and her title over the land will be put to an end. It is further stated in the application that accused are roaming about and are looking for the complainant and she fear for her life and property from them and they can cause loss to her property and her life any time. The police after investigation, filed the cancellation report as per Annexure P-2. Aggrieved by the cancellation report submitted by the police, the complainant filed criminal complaint and in the said complaint, the petitioners were summoned by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dabwali for the offence under Sections 447, 506 IPC and Sections 3 (a) (iv) (v) of the SC/ST Act. There is also inordinate and unexplained delay of four days in lodging the FIR. It is further stated in the petition that petitioner No.1 is Vice President of Indian National Lokdal of District Sirsa. Even now the land comprised in khasra No.97 Killa No.7/2, 8, 9/1 measuring 13 kanals and 8 marlas is under the ownership of Mithoo Singh caste Jatt Sikh VINEET GULATI 2014.11.26 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-28254 of 2013 -3- as is clear from the certified copy of the Allotment Letter issued by Allotment Authority, Dabwali. A civil suit was also filed and the Court held that complainant is neither owner nor in possession of the suit land.
Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 appeared and contested the petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that learned JMIC, Dabwali framed the charges in this case on the basis of complaint under Sections 447, 148, 147, 506 IPC and under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. The perusal of the record shows that after the investigation, police filed cancellation report in the FIR case. Then a protest petition was filed, which was accepted and the Court summoned both the petitioners and charged them under above-stated Sections.
From the perusal of the record, it is also clear that there is dispute between the parties regarding the agricultural land. The perusal of the complaint shows that the petitioners along with 40-50 persons came to the fields of the complainant but the complaint has been filed only against present petitioners. The perusal of the complaint further shows that the ingredients of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act have also not been proved. Firstly, the word 'churi' has not been specifically attributed to the present petitioner. It is in the complaint that present petitioner along with 40-50 persons entered into the fields VINEET GULATI 2014.11.26 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-28254 of 2013 -4- of the complainant and removed her from the fields and they all abused her with the name of her caste which means that all of them abused her. There is nothing in the complaint that the caste related word has been uttered intentionally in the public view. There is nothing in the complaint that any witness was present at that time and as per complainant, the occurrence took place in the fields. Therefore, ingredients of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act are not proved and no offence is made out. Furthermore, as per the petition, Mithoo Singh was the allottee and he was Jatt Sikh by caste. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that civil proceedings are already pending regarding the possession of the property in dispute. The matter was reported to the police after delay of four days and police after investigation, found it a false case and filed cancellation report. There is also nothing on the record to show as to what threat to kill has been given. It is a general averment.
From the above facts and circumstances, I find that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners in this case. Therefore, the charges framed against the present petitioners are liable to be quashed.
As regarding the application under Section 311 Cr.P..C. to place on record the caste certificate issued by competent authority, which has been allowed by the lower Court, in no way, it can be held that it amounts to filling up of lacuna. Even if it is taken that the caste certificate is issued later on after the registration of the FIR or filing of the complaint, is no ground to quash the order. The oral evidence VINEET GULATI 2014.11.26 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-28254 of 2013 -5- regarding this fact that complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste, is already on the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited judgment passed by this Court in Kuldip Raj Mahajan vs. Hukam Chand, 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 370, in which it is held that earlier complainant lodged FIR. Investigation was conducted by police and cancellation report was submitted. Then a complaint was filed before the Court in the same incident. It was held that the Court issued summoning order without considering cancellation report and the summoning order was quashed. It is further held in that case that without considering the investigation report/cancellation report, the impugned summoning order could not have been legally passed by the learned Magistrate.
I have gone through the above-cited judgment and the same fully applies to the present case as in the case in hand also, the trial Court has not considered the cancellation report filed by the police.
In view of the above discussion, the order dated 12.08.2013 vide which the learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioners and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed.
The present petition stands allowed accordingly.
November 14, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
VINEET GULATI
2014.11.26 12:36
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh