Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Amandeep Singh @ Rimpy vs The State Of Punjab on 18 August, 2017
Bench: N.V. Ramana, Prafulla C. Pant
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1430-1432 OF 2017
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos. 5131-5133 of 2014)
AMANDEEP SINGH @ RIMPY Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgments and orders dated 9.8.2012 and 20.1.2014, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-3277 of 2012 and CRM No. 61424-25 of 2012, whereby the High Court, vide order Signature Not Verified dated 9.8.2012, allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 210 dated 4.8.2009 and all Digitally signed by SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR Date: 2017.08.31 11:58:53 PKT Reason: subsequent proceedings, qua petitioner Surjit Singh (respondent No.2 herein). The High Court, 2 vide order dated 20.1.2014, dismissed the application filed by the de-facto complainant (appellant herein) for recall of order dated 9.8.2012.
On the basis of a complaint by the appellant, a First Information Report was registered on 4.8.2009 under Sections 326, 324, 427, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against some unidentified assailants. According to the complainant, the appellant was attacked by assailants with kirpan, iron rod and gandassi while he was moving on a motorbike along with one Daljit Kumar. The assailants then ran away in a black Scorpio. During the course of investigation, one Buta Singh (owner of the Scorpio) confessed to the police about the involvement of one Surjit Singh, son of Gurdial Singh, resident of village Jajja Khurd, PS Phillaur, presently residing in United States of America (USA), who is the husband of one Harpreet Kaur daughter of Malook Ram, while staying in USA, he organized the crime by paying money to inflict injuries to the appellant as Surjit Singh suspected love affair between the appellant/complainant and his wife Harpreet Kaur. Moreover, he provided names of five accused persons who participated in the alleged offence.
After recording the said statement, SHO, 3 Police Station Mukundpur, on 14.6.2010, moved an application before the JMIC, Nawanshahar, District SBS Nagar for issuance of arrest warrant against Surjit Singh, respondent No.2 herein.
Thereafter, Surjit Singh moved an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for quashing of F.I.R. No. 210 dated 4.8.2009 under Sections 326, 324, 323, 427, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Banga, District SBS Nagar. It is to be noted that the appellant herein was not impleaded as respondent in the aforesaid case.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by order dated 9.8.2012, quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings with reference to Surjit Singh, respondent No.2 herein.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant herein filed an application seeking recall of the said order on the ground that he was not made a party to the said proceedings. The High Court again, on 21.2.2014, dismissed the application for recalling the order dated 9.8.2012, and observed that the FIR in the instant case does not contain name of respondent No.2 herein. Further the recalling has been sought by ASI on the fact that the alleged extra judicial 4 confession recorded by ASI Daljit Singh, to the effect that the petitioner was in India on the date of occurrence, has been found to be false and departmental action is being taken against the said official. He has also relied upon the reply filed by the State that Rs. 55,000/- were assured to be paid to the assailants.
Aggrieved by the said orders, the present appeals have been filed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
It is unfortunate to note that the High Court, while, exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed the complaint against respondent No.2 without completion of investigation. The High Court has quashed the FIR and the proceedings on the ground that at the time of occurrence on 4.8.2009, respondent No.2 Surjit Singh was not in India and according to the material placed before it, he had left the country in 2006 and never visited again. Therefore the case appears to be a false implication. Subsequently, in the recalling order also, it made the observation that the ASI, while recording the extra judicial confession, has given a wrong statement that Surjit Singh was in India on the date of occurrence and that is why a departmental action is being initiated against 5 him.
After perusing the material placed before us, it is clear from the record that once Surjit Singh’s name (respondent no. 2) was shown as an accused in the FIR, he made an application to the SP (Operations), S.B.S. Nagar seeking an independent probe into the matter. S.P. (Operations), S.B.S. Nagar carried out the investigation and submitted a report recommending declaration of the respondent No.2 as innocent. However the SSP after consideration of the report disagreed with the conclusions of the SP (Operations), S.B.S. Nagar and directed to proceed against Surjit Singh, respondent No.2 herein.
Thereafter ASI Daljit Singh investigated the matter and approached the trial court by filing an application seeking arrest warrant against Surjit Singh (respondent no. 2). In the aforesaid application Daljit Singh, ASI had mistakenly mentioned that respondent No.2 (Surjit Singh) had himself caused injuries, whereas the case of the prosecution was that Surjit Singh was the one who had organized the crime in India, while staying in USA.
After completion of the formalities, respondent No.2 Surjit Singh was declared as a proclaimed offender by an order dated 3.2.2012.
6Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed the petition for quashing of the FIR in question, before the High Court. The police also, in response to the quashing of the proceedings, clarified that a mistake had occurred while making an application by ASI Daljit Singh.
DSP Banga filed a detailed reply mentioning that the injuries were inflicted by the persons at the instance of respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 has paid to those accused and also made it clear that one of the accused Randeep has revealed in his statement that he has undertaken to do such crime by receiving an amount of Rs. 55,000/-.
The High Court, without looking into these aspects, simply on the basis of the mistake in the statement made by the ASI Daljit Singh, quashed the proceedings. It is also clear from the clarification in the affidavit filed before the High Court by the DSP that the respondent No.2 in these appeals, at the time of commission of offence, was in USA. He organised this crime by paying money. ASI Daljit Singh has also made a wrong statement and for making such statement, he recommended to the higher authorities for departmental enquiry against the ASI.
As per the narration of the prosecution, Even though Surjit Singh (respondent no. 2) was in USA, 7 at the time of the offence, his involvement in organizing the crime in India needs to be investigated. Apart from this, while exercising the power for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court must have carefully exercised that power. Usually in such cases, when specific allegations are made and the person is injured, by simply considering the documents filed across the Bar, the Court should not quash the proceedings. As a matter of fact, the accused can place all the material before the trial Court and take such defense. It is not appropriate to make any further comments on the merits of the case.
In view of the above, we allow these appeals, set aside the orders dated 9.8.2012 and 20.1.2014 passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against respondent No.2 and also dismissing the application for recalling the order dated 9.8.2012.
At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.2 made a request that as the respondent No.1 – State of Punjab has declared respondent No.2 as proclaimed offender, he is willing to come to India and surrender before the concerned Court. If that is so, the respondent No.2 Surjit Singh is at liberty to surrender before the concerned Court and move an application for regular bail under 8 Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If such an application is filed, the trial Court is at liberty to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on its own merits.
.................J (N.V.RAMANA) ................J. (PRAFULLA C. PANT) New Delhi, August 18, 2017 9 ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.10 SECTION II-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5131-5133/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-08-2012 in CRLM No. 3277/2012 20-01-2014 in CRLM No. 61424/2012 20-01-2014 in CRLM No. 61425/2012 20-01-2014 in CRLM No. 3277/2012 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) AMANDEEP SINGH @ RIMPY Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 18-08-2017 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Vishal Mahajan, Adv. Mr. Vinod Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anshul Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
(SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR) (S. SIVARAMAKRISHNA)
AR CUM PS ASST.REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)