Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devinder Singh @ Des Raj And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 13 February, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-12550 of 2011 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-12550 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.2.2013
Devinder Singh @ Des Raj and another
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Mohit Garg, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.J.S.Bhullar, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.Raman Sharma, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 and 3.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of criminal complaint No.01 dated 11.2.2010 (Annexure P-
8) under Sections 499/ 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short); summoning order dated 17.11.2010 (Annexure P-9) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
The contents of the complaint (Annexure P-8) read as under:-
"1. That the complainant are the residents of village Criminal Misc. No.M-12550 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Moolowal, P.S.Sherpur, Tehsil Dhuri and are peace loving citizen.
2. That the accused persons are also residents of village Moolowal P.S.Sherpur.
3. That the complainant Gurjant Singh works dairy Farm and has also land owner. He gives his land on chakota and earns his livelihood. The complainants are living in the village and have good moral character, and on the other hand the accused are quarrelsome nature and they formed a party to cause loss to others.
4. That the accused No.1 in connivance with other accused persons has registered a false complaint against the complainant vide FIR No. 98 dated 11.11.2006 under Sections 465/201/ 499/ 500 IPC in police station Sherpur. The accused persons are fully knowing well that the complaint is false one but even then the accused No.2 to 5 forced the accused No.1 to get the complaint registered against the complainants.
5. That the police of P.S.Sherpur produced the challan before the Hon'ble Court vide challan No.17 dated
2.6.2007. The complainants faced the trial for about 3 years and spent huge money.
6. That this fact spread in the village moolowal and the surrounding areas and the people started to hate with the complainants. The people of the village Moolowal i.e. Criminal Misc. No.M-12550 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Jagdev Singh s/o Joginder Singh, Mehar Singh, ex Sarpanch, Gaura Singh s/o Bhag Singh, Jagga Singh son of Nikka Singh, Jodh Singh s/o Gurdial Singh, all residents of village Moolowal, P.S.Sherpur, seen the complainants with hatred eyes. The accused No.2 to 5 have given false statements in the Hon'ble Court and in this way the reputation of the complainants have lowered in the eyes of the villagers.
7. That the accused No.1 has also given wrong statement in the Hon'ble Court just to lower the reputation of the complainants and therefore, all the accused had tried to defame the complainants and the offence committed by the accused fall under Sections 499/ 500 IPC.
8. That the accused persons have committed the offence at village Moolowal and the accused are also the residents of village Moolowal, P.S.Sherpur and therefore, this Hon'ble Court has got jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.
9. That the FIR lodged by the accused No.1 in connivance with accused No.2 to 5 tried by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court acquitted the complainants in that case vide judgment dated 13.11.2009. Certified copy of judgment is also attached herewith.
10. That a court fee of rs 1/25 has been affixed on the Criminal Misc. No.M-12550 of 2011 (O&M) 4 complaint.
11. That the accused-persons have committed the offence under Sections 499/ 500 IPC and, therefore, they be summoned to face trial and they be punished according to law.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the accused may kindly be summoned and be punished as per law."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a perusal of the complaint itself revealed that no offence under Section 500 IPC could be said to have been committed by the petitioners.
Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, on the other hand, has submitted that the said respondents had been made to face the trial on the basis of false allegations levelled against them by the petitioners. Due to the said trial, respondents No.2 and 3 had been defamed in their relatives and friends.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.
In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to Criminal Misc. No.M-12550 of 2011 (O&M) 5 prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Criminal Misc. No.M-12550 of 2011 (O&M) 6 Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or Criminal Misc. No.M-12550 of 2011 (O&M) 7 inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." FIR No.98 dated 11.11.2006 under Sections 465, 201, 499, 500 IPC was registered at Police Station Sherpur against respondents No.2 and 3 at the instance of petitioner No.1. Petitioners supported their case during trial. However, the trial Court did not believe the statements of the prosecution witnesses and ordered the acquittal of respondents No.2 and 3 vide judgment dated 13.11.2009 (Annexure P-6). Para 16 of the said judgment reads as under:-
" After hearing the learned APP for the State, learned defence counsel and going through the statements of the witnesses and documents, I am of the considered view that the accused have been charged under Sections 465/201/ 500 IPC. The prosecution did not dare to file an application to get the specimen handwriting or signatures of any of the accused. No such, document has been placed on record or proved by the prosecution about which the accused have allegedly committed forgery. So, no offence under Section 465 of IPC is made out against the accused person. The Section 201 is regarding destroying of evidence. There is no evidence on record from which, it could be inferred that the accused destroyed the documents or evidence. More over the letter in possession of the accused have been produced Criminal Misc. No.M-12550 of 2011 (O&M) 8 by the accused, which are attached/ annexed with the judicial file. There was no reason for them to destroy the same. When the letters were produced, even then, the prosecution did not file an application to get it compared with the handwriting or signatures of the accused persons. So, no offence under Section 201 of IPC is made out. The only allegations remains there is the distribution of letter in the police station by the accused. It is the admitted case of the parties that both the parties used to appear in the police station in connection with complaints and when the present accused was called in the police station. She produced the photocopies of letter written by Anita Kamal, it does not amount to defamation because the Inspector Dalip Singh was the in charge of the police station and appropriate authority regarding the conducting of inquiry about the allegations and counter allegations of the parties. The intention of the accused was not to defame the girl Anita Kamal, it was the defence of the accused that the allegations leveled by the complainant party are false and baseless. Moreover, the accused filed an application for summoning the Anita Kamal for obtaining her specimen handwriting on 22.7.2008. The learned APP filed the reply to the application and contested the same. Had the letters produced by the accused in the court not written by girl Criminal Misc. No.M-12550 of 2011 (O&M) 9 Anita Kamal, she would not have hesitate to appear before the Court to give the specimen handwriting. So, the adverse inference also goes against her as she intentionally did not appear to give the specimen handwriting or she was not inclined to give her specimen handwriting. So, stating the truth is not covered under Section 499 IP. So, I am of the considered view that prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable shadow of doubt under Sections 465/ 201, 500 IPC. Therefore, the accused are ordered to be acquitted of the charge framed against them. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stood discharged."
Annexure P-5 is the order dated 5.12.2008 passed in CRM-M No. 18143 of 2008 filed by respondents No.2 and 3 seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise. A perusal of the said order reveals that the petition was dismissed by this Court on the ground that the prosecution had already concluded its evidence and statements of the accused had been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It appears that a compromise had been effected between the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 3. Petition was filed by respondents No.2 and 3 seeking quashing of the FIR registered against them at the instance of petitioners. However, the said petition was dismissed by this Court on the ground that the prosecution evidence had since been concluded. Later on the trial Criminal Misc. No.M-12550 of 2011 (O&M) 10 Court had acquitted respondents No.2 and 3 of the charges framed against them, after going through the evidence on record. The petitioners had taken recourse to law. Hence, the allegations levelled by the petitioners against respondents No.2 and 3 in good faith by lodging the FIR against them cannot be said to be defamation.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No.01 dated 11.2.2010 (Annexure P-8) under Sections 499/ 500 IPC; summoning order dated 17.11.2010 (Annexure P-9) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE February 13, 2013 anita