Punjab-Haryana High Court
Brahm Dutt & Others vs State Of Punjab & Another on 17 September, 2008
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Criminal Misc.No.22447-M of 2006 :1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No.22447-M of 2006
Date of Decision: September 17, 2008
Brahm Dutt & others
...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab & another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Mehar Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab,
for the State.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioners, who are facing prosecution for offences under Sections 306, 342, 506 read with Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, seek quashing of the FIR and the proceedings in Criminal Misc.No.22447-M of 2006 :2 : progress against them.
Kabul Singh, respondent No.2, lodged this FIR against the petitioners. As per the allegations in the FIR, one Jarnail Singh, who is cousin brother of the complainant, died ten years back leaving behind his widow Surjit Kaur and three sons, Mukhtiar Singh, Jaspal Singh and Jagtar Singh. They are the owners of 2-1/2 acres of land and used to sell their crops to Brahm Dutt son of Dhani Ram, Commission Agent at Khalra. Upon settlement of the accounts, it was found that the nephew of the complainant owed a sum of Rs.one lac to said Brahm Dutt. He accordingly made them to enter into an agreement to sell on 16.2.2003. It is alleged that the Commission Agent got this agreement executed by cheating to the tune of Rs.2,80,000/-. Because of this, the wife of cousin brother of the complainant and his nephew were quite disturbed. It is further alleged that Brahm Dutt along with his son Devinder Kumar and so many other persons had come to the house of the late cousin brother of the complainant and slapped Jagtar Singh. Threats were also advanced for him to execute sale deed or otherwise he would be taught a lesson. Matter was also reported to the police by Brahm Dutt and the police also started putting pressure by calling these persons to police station. This sent fear waves to the entire family and ultimately they accompanied by panchayat went to police station for settling the issue. Brahm Dutt and his son were present there at the police station and threatened Jaspal Singh to involve him by implanting a revolver belonging to terrorists which he possessed and could be shown as recovered from said Jaspal Singh. SHO Buta Singh made Jaspal Singh to sit in the police station and called a Criminal Misc.No.22447-M of 2006 :3 : panchayat. Jaspal Singh fainted in the police station itself and fell down. He was immediately removed out of the police station and taken to a shop of Dr.Rajinder Singh @ Rana. Jaspal Singh was found to have died. It is, thus, alleged that Jaspal Singh died because of fear and threat advanced by Brahm Dutt, Commission Agent and his son Devinder Kumar and, thus, were responsible for his death.
The petitioners, however, would admit the part of story as projected regarding the relationship of Jaspal Singh's family for selling crops through the petitioners. As per the petitioners, Jaspal Singh and his family borrowed money from them for domestic use and for performing the marriage of their son etc. Ultimately, they offered to sell 12 kanals of land in the village for a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- out of which Rs.2,80,000/- was received as earnest money. The case of the petitioners further is that Jaspal Singh approached petitioner No.1 saying that they have changed their mind and, thus, wanted to return the earnest money and so they all were asked to be present for settlement in this regard. In this background, Mehanga Singh Sarpanch etc. were required to accompany the petitioners, whereas Jaspal Singh wanted his uncle Mahal Singh to be taken along. Mehanga Singh was not found present as he had gone to Police Station, Khalra. According to the petitioners, petitioner No.1 was asked to wait at the house of Mahal Singh, so that Jaspal Singh could bring Mehanga Singh. Though petitioner No.1 waited, but Mahal Singh and Jaspal Singh did not return. After some time, the petitioners went to Police Station, Khalra to know about Mehanga Singh etc. and enroute met Jaspal Singh found coming on a motor Criminal Misc.No.22447-M of 2006 :4 : cycle. Devinder Kumar, son of petitioner No.1, was sitting on a pillion seat. Petitioner No. 1gave a signal to Jaspal Singh to stop, but he sped away. Devinder Kumar then jumped from the motor cycle and ran towards the house of Jaspal Singh. As per the allegations, Jaspal Singh had gone to the house of Brahm Dutt and told his son Devinder Kumar that his father wanted the original agreement. Petitioner No.1 on seeing Jaspal Singh had got suspicion that his son was being kidnapped and so he had approached the police and gave a complaint on 5.6.2004. This complaint was enquired into by ASI Surjit Singh and so Jaspal Singh was asked to appear in the police station. In this background, Jaspal Singh had gone to the police station on 10.6.2004 along with the panchayat. It is not disputed, though the petitioners claim it to be a rumour, that Jaspal Singh fell down in the police station and was removed to the hospital. It is in this background, that a case under Sections 306, 342, 506 and 34 IPC was registered against the petitioners. The petitioners would make out a case that originally case was registered against the police officials as Jaspal Singh had died in the police station, but subsequently this FIR was diverted towards the petitioners only to appease the family of the complainant. The police has further made a case against petitioners No.3 to 5 alleging that agreement is false document and this is also further to please the complainant side. The prayer for quashing the FIR accordingly is made in this background.
I have not been able to appreciate the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners for quashing of the FIR in this case. The allegations made in the FIR would reveal a specific stand of the complainant, which led to the death of Jaspal Singh. If this had Criminal Misc.No.22447-M of 2006 :5 : happened in some different manner, that is required to be established before the court of law by leading evidence in this regard. How a different story as projected by an accused can lead to quashing of FIR really cannot be appreciated. The counsel for the petitioners would raise various propositions to say that they are not responsible in any manner for this death, which cannot be appreciated only on the basis of affidavits as is sought to be done. All these aspects are required to be established by leading evidence and then would be appreciated by the trial court.
The counsel has also made a grievance in regard to the allegations that agreement has been termed as a forged document only as an after-thought. He has also made a grievance that these two offences alleged against the petitioners cannot be joined together for the purpose of trial and in this regard would refer to the contents of Section 218 Cr.P.C. The law on the subject of joinder of charges and joint trials is contained in Sections 218 to 223 Cr.P.C. These sections dealing with joinder of charges are to be read together and not in isolation. These sections deal with the same subject matter and set out different aspects in this regard. Sections 219, 220 and 221 Cr.P.C. apply to the cases where one person may be dealt with at one trial for more than one offence, while section 223 applies to the trial of more persons than one jointly. The question whether two or more charges may be tried in one trial or not is a matter of discretion of the trial court, to be exercised with regard to the facts of each case. The provisions of Section 220 Cr.P.C. can also not be completely ignored. Section 220(1) clearly provides for trial of more than one offence, if it is found that in one series of acts Criminal Misc.No.22447-M of 2006 :6 : so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, then he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. It has been observed that real and substantial test for determining whether several offences are connected together so as to form one transaction depends upon whether they are so related to one another in point of purpose or as to the cause and effect or as principal and subsidiary acts as to constitute one continuous action. This test has generally been adopted by the courts. Even proximity of time is not considered so essential as continuity of action and the purpose. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao and another, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1850, it is observed as under:-
"It is generally thought that where there is proximity of time or place or unity of purpose and design or continuity of action in respect of a series of acts, it may be possible to infer that they form part of the same transaction. It is, however, not necessary that every one of these elements should co-exist for a transaction to be regarded as the same. But if several acts committed by a person show a unity of purpose or design that would be a strong circumstance to indicate that those acts form part of same transaction. The connection between a series of acts seems to us to be an essential ingredient for those acts to constitute the same transaction......."
Section 219 Cr.P.C. also provides for charging of three offences of same kind committed within a period of one year. While clarifying the offences of the same kind, it is provided in Section 219 Criminal Misc.No.22447-M of 2006 :7 : (2) that the offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code or any special or local law. The offences arising out of agreement being false are definitely connected with the offence of abetment of death of Jaspal Singh on the part of the petitioners and these two offences are series of acts which are so connected together as to form the same transaction. The tests, as mentioned above, apparently seem to be satisfied for joining these offences together for the purpose of trial. Moreover, this objection in my view cannot lead to grant of the prayer of quashing of the FIR on this count. If the petitioners feel aggrieved on this count that they cannot be tried together for these offences, they can easily raise such a plea before the trial court. This ground, to my mind, cannot in any valid manner be pleaded to seek quashing of the FIR. Accordingly, I cannot persuade myself to agree with the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and would dismiss this present petition being without any merits.
September 17, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE