Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 18 February, 2009
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
Crl. Misc No. M-35542 of 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc No. M-35542 of 2007
Date of decision : 18.02.2009
Jaswinder Singh and another
....Petitioners
V/s
State of Haryana and another
....Respondents.
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG Haryana.
Mr HPS Ghuman, Advocate
for the respondent No. 2.
RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)
This is a petition for quashing of complainant case No. 176 of 2006 under Sections 323, 379, 354, 506, 34 IPC and the summoning order dated 30.10.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
The main grouse of the petitioners is that the complaint is manifestly unjust and malifide; the same has been instituted maliciously and with ulterior motive. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to history of litigation between petitioners and respondent No. 2 in support of his contentions that instant complaint is as a result of malice and personal vendetta. Learned counsel has submitted that earlier there was civil litigation between the parties. Petitioner No. 1 had filed a civil suit praying for decree of permanent injunction to restrain respondent No. 2 for Crl. Misc No. M-35542 of 2007 2 encroaching upon any portion of his land. On 29.04.2005 a decree was passed in favour of petitioner No. 1 by the Court of Civil Judge Sr. division, Kaithal. According to the counsel even after passing of the decree the dispute continued. On 26.06.2006 a complaint was made to the police regarding the activities of respondent No. 2. A 'Calandera' under Sections 107, 150, 151 Cr.P.C. was filed against the family of respondent No. 2. In the said 'Calandera' it was mentioned by the police that family of respondent No. 2 was very aggressive and often quarreled with the petitioners. Learned counsel has further submitted that on 27.09.2006 family of respondent No. 2 had injured the petitioner No. 1 with knife and dangs, resultantly an FIR under Sections 323,324,506, 34 IPC (annexed as Annexure P-3 to the petition) was registered. Another FIR dated 24.01.2007 (annexed as Annexure P-4 to the petition) was registered due to a similar occurrence. According to the counsel husband of respondent No. 2 had instituted a false complaint also against the petitioners under Section 324, 452, 427, 506, 34 IPC. However, this was dismissed in default on 17.11.2005. Counsel has, therefore, submitted that the instant complaint lodged on 25.08.2006 is a complaint of similar nature filed with ulterior motive and as a measure of vendetta. Thus quashing of the complaint and the summoning order Annexures P-7 and P-8 respectively has been sought in this petition. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992, Supreme Court 604 and a judgment of this court in Ajit Sharma and others Vs. Meenu Singh Dhindsa 2006(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 652 to contend that if criminal proceedings are instituted maliciously or with ulterior motive or where the allegations in the complaint are totally absurd Crl. Misc No. M-35542 of 2007 3 and improbable the court is within its power to quash the same.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has however, rebutted the arguments of counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that petitioners have been rightly summoned by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal after recording of preliminary evidence of the complainant/respondent No. 2 and her husband. After being satisfied that a case for summoning was made out, the said court had issued the process. A reply has been filed on behalf of the State by way of an affidavit of Hari Ram Sub Inspector-SHO, P.S. Siwan, District, Kaithal wherein it has been affirmed that proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. are pending against respondent No. 2 on the complaint made by the petitioners. As regard the facts of the present complaint are concerned, it has been stated in the affidavit that the same is purely within the domain of the Court.
I have heard counsel for the parties and given my careful thought to the case in hand. Undoubtedly, there appears to be a long standing dispute between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 and they have fought various litigations against each other from time to time. In the instant petition, quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-7) and summoning order (Annexure P-8) has been sought by referring to the same litigation, the contention being that present litigation is wholly motivated and malicious.
A perusal of the summoning order shows that Court recorded the evidence of respondent No. 2 and her husband. After examining both of them, the court decided to summon the accused . It was stated inter-alia in the complaint that the plot of the complainant is adjacent to the land of the accused. On 16.08.2006 when the complainant was giving fodder to her cattle, the accused entered the room and tried to outrage her modesty. Her Crl. Misc No. M-35542 of 2007 4 clothes were also torn due to which she raise hue and cry and when people gathered on the spot the accused ran away and according to the complainant they took her ear-rings while fleeing from the spot.
Keeping in view the allegations contained in the complaint, I am of the considered view that it is not possible for this Court to arrive at a conclusion at this stage that the instant complaint has been instituted due to ulterior motive or malice and thus quash the same. The ground for quashing which has been pressed by the counsel for the petitioners is that present complaint is as a result of earlier litigation pending between the parties has no force. It is obvious from the record annexed with the petition that there has been various cases of civil and criminal nature between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 from time to time. Since petitioners and family of respondent No. 2 have been fighting with each other quite often, it is not possible for this Court to conclude that allegations levelled in the instant complaint are totally false, improbable or malicious. This conclusion can only be reached by the trial court after evidence is led before it.
There can be no dispute with the proposition of law referred to by the counsel for the petitioner in case of Bhajan Lal (supra) and Ajit Sharma (supra).
In Bhajan Lal's case in para 108, seven guidelines have been laid down for quashing of an FIR or complaint, one of them being, where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance due to private and personal grudge. However, in the present case as discussed above, it is not possible for this Court to arrive at a finding at this stage that present complaint is as a result of personal judge or ulterior motive. On the other hand, due to long Crl. Misc No. M-35542 of 2007 5 standing dispute between the parties, the possibility of occurrence as reported by the complainant having taken place cannot be completely ruled out. The other judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioners in Ajit Sharma (supra) being on the similar lines requires no further comment.
In the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find it a fit case for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint and the summoning order. The petition is thus dismissed.
18.02.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE