Punjab-Haryana High Court
Niranjan Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 August, 2010
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc. No.M-9912 of 2010
Date of decision: 17.8.2010
Niranjan Singh and others
......Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.
PRESENT: Mr.J.S.Kahlon, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate,
for complainant.
****
ORDER
This petition has been filed for quashing of complaint dated 21.7.2005 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 3.3.2010 under Sections 323/341/379/149 IPC (Annexure P-2).
Notice of motion was issued in this case on 5.4.2010 and following contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was noted down:
" Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in regard to the same incident, FIR (Annexure P-3) was lodged at the instance of Naranjan Singh (petitioner No.1). The complaint is in counter blast to the same. The FIR case is at the final stage of Crl.Misc. No.M-9912 of 2010 [2] trial."
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present complaint is a counter-blast to the earlier FIR registered at the instance of petitioner No.1 and the Magistrate while issuing summoning order has taken into consideration the evidence which is totally irrelevant and inadmissible in the eyes of law. The continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that after having got the accused admitted in civil hospital, Singhpur, petitioner No.1 went to police station to lodge the FIR and purpose of present complaint is just to frustrate the proceedings of the case where FIR has already been registered. The Magistrate has passed the summoning order on the basis of statements of complainant, his mother and brother who are interested witnesses and the photocopy of the MLR has not been verified by the doctor which carries no evidentiary value in the eyes of law.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the trial Court on the basis of statement of complainant and other documents including MLR found sufficient ground to proceed against accused Naranjan Singh, Balbir singh, Kuldip Singh, Jatinder Pal Singh and Gurpratap Singh and no ground was made out to proceed against accused Harjeet Kaur and Shaminder Kaur. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that the petitioners are having alternative remedy by way of filing revision against the summoning order as the order passed by the Magistrate is revisable order and moreover, the inherent powers of High Crl.Misc. No.M-9912 of 2010 [3] Court cannot be invoked where alternative remedy of revision is there.
I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the complaint as well as summoning order.
As per preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, petitioners are having an alternative remedy of revision against the impugned summoning order. Admittedly, the order is revisable and the petition cannot be adjudicated upon on merits. The inherent power of the High Court cannot be pressed where alternative remedy of revision is there.
In Balabhadra Dash and another v. State of Orissa and others 1991 Crl.L.J. 2457 it has been held as under:
" Inherent power is wide in nature and Section 482 in Cr.P.C. having been made to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court, such power is to be exercised with great restraint. Wider would be the power, greater should be the restraint. Ordinarily, trial of an accused in a criminal prosecution is to be concluded under the previsions of Criminal Procedure Code and High Court would be reluctant to conclude the same at an interim stage. Therefore, prayer for quashing charge or taking cognizance ought not to be entertained in a routine manner and unless High Court is satisfied that there is abuse of process of Court or ends of justice demand it, such prayer ought not to be entertained. Even Crl.Misc. No.M-9912 of 2010 [4] if, such prayers are entertained, all endeavours should be made to examine if the abuse of powers of Court can be eradicated without bringing the proceeding to an end in the midway. Where accused would be put to such inconvenient position and subsequent examination of these questions would materially affect him which would be irreparable in nature, High Court can for reasons to be recorded in that regard, examine the materials to interfere with the continuation of trial. Therefore, where all the accused persons had an opportunity to advance submissions before the Magistrate that materials on record do not call for framing of charge against them, High Court declined exercise of inherent powers for quashing cognizance. In subordinate authority normally higher authority should not exercise its powers to give same relief."
In Mohan Lal and another v. State, 1974 Crl.L.J.1407, it has been held as under:
" The inherent power of the High Court under that provision, to my mind, cannot be pressed in aid for the purpose of indirectly undoing or modifying an order which is appealable ore revisable and has become final because no appeal or revision was filed against it or Crl.Misc. No.M-9912 of 2010 [5] having been filed were dismissed thus giving finality to the same. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 17th January, 1969 and the appellate order therefrom are not in challenge in these proceedings."
Learned counsel for the petitioners was also not able to show anything where an alternative remedy is available, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable.
In the present case, since the summoning order is revisable order as the petitioner has not availed the remedy of revision against the impugned order passed by the Magistrate, the present petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty, if so advised, to file revision against the summoning order taking all the please which have been raised in this petition.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE August 17, 2010.
raghav