Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh And Others vs Arjan Singh And Another on 10 April, 2013
Author: L.N. Mittal
Bench: L.N. Mittal
Criminal Misc. No. M-8922 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-8922 of 2012
Date of decision : April 10, 2013
Kuldeep Singh and others
....Petitioners
versus
Arjan Singh and another
....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Present : Mr. TPS Tung, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no.1
Mr. Mikhail Kad, AAG Punjab for respondent no. 2
L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)
Accused Kuldeep Singh and three others have filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing criminal complaint No. 71 of 2008 Annexure P/1 under sections 3
(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) and sections 452, 341, 323 and 506 read with section 34 IPC filed by respondent no. 1 Arjan Singh-complainant along with summoning order dated 17.8.2010 Annexure P/2 and all other Criminal Misc. No. M-8922 of 2012 -2- consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Respondent no. 1 has alleged in the complaint that on 22.5.2008 at about 10.00 AM, all the four accused/petitioners trespassed into house of the complainant and forcibly dragged him out of his house. Alarm raised by him attracted people from the nearby houses but no body came forward to intervene. Accused no. 1 uttered derogatory remarks with reference to caste of the complainant knowing that he belongs to scheduled caste. The accused persons caused injuries to the complainant and then took him to unknown place and detained him during the day and at about 7.00 PM handed over the complainant to Police Station in connection with a false police case bearing FIR No. 92 dated 16.5.2008 under sections 452, 427 and 506 read with section 34 IPC. Since the police did not take any action, the complainant has filed this complaint.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had already lodged FIR No. 92 dated 16.5.2008 against respondent no. 1- complainant and therefore, the impugned criminal complaint is counter-blast to the said FIR. It was also argued that according to MLR Annexure P/4, the complainant was medico legally examined at 11.00 PM and probable duration of injuries was within six hours and therefore, causing of injuries at about 10.00 AM i.e. 13 hours before the medico legal examination of the Criminal Misc. No. M-8922 of 2012 -3- complainant is reasonably ruled out and the alleged occurrence did not take place. It was also canvassed that petitioners had also lodged another FIR No. 67 dated 8.4.2008 under sections 452 and 324 read with section 34 IPC against the complainant and his sons Joginder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh and to create cross version in the said case, Sukhwinder Singh had self-suffered some injuries which were found to be fabricated and therefore, Calendra Annexure P/5 dated 3.6.2008 under section 182 IPC was lodged against Sukhwinder Singh.
Counsel for respondent no. 1-complainant contended that the doctor who medico legally examined the complainant has appeared as witness in the preliminary evidence and has deposed about the injuries suffered by the complainant and therefore, complainant's version is corroborated by the medical evidence. It was also argued that from the averments made in the complaint, prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioners for various offences is made out and they have been rightly summoned. It was also argued that in Calendra Annexure P/5, the complainant's son has since been acquitted.
Counsel for the petitioners stated that Sukhwinder Singh has not been acquitted in Calendra Annexure P/5 but the said Calendra was dismissed due to non-appearance of the Investigating Officer.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions.
Criminal Misc. No. M-8922 of 2012 -4-At the outset, it may be noticed that allegation relating to offence under section 3(x) of the Act is against petitioner no. 1 only. There is no allegation regarding said offence against petitioners no. 2 to 4.
As rightly pointed out by counsel for the petitioners, the instant impugned criminal complaint is counter-blast to two FIRs No. 92 of 2008 and 67 of 2008 already lodged by the petitioners against the complainant and his sons. In FIR No. 67 of 2008, the complainant's son tried to create evidence of cross-version by self suffering some injuries and consequently, Calendra Annexure P/5 was instituted against him under section 182 IPC. In FIR No. 92 of 2008, the complainant was arrested on 22.5.2008, the date of alleged occurrence. Injuries suffered by the complainant in the alleged occurrence are completely superficial, simple and minor injuries. He was found to be having an abrasion and a diffused swelling and complaints of pain at three places without any visible mark. The medical evidence completely demolishes the case of the complainant instead of corroborating it. The complainant was examined at 11.00 PM on 22.5.2008. All the injuries found on his person had allegedly been caused within probable duration of six hours only i.e. at or after 5 PM whereas according to the complainant the occurrence had taken place at about 10.00 AM. Thus, the medical evidence does not corroborate the complainant's version and is rather inconsistent with the complainant's version. Criminal Misc. No. M-8922 of 2012 -5- Admittedly, there is also civil litigation pending between the parties. The impugned complaint is nothing but counter-blast to FIR No. 92 dated 16.5.2008 and FIR No. 67 dated 8.4.2008 and Calendra Annexure P/5. The alleged occurrence pleaded by the complainant in the complaint is falsified by the medical evidence.
In these circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioners is gross abuse of process of law resulting in miscarriage of justice which has to be prevented by this Court by exercising inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed. Impugned complaint Annexure P/1 and summoning order Annexure P/2 along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
( L.N. Mittal )
April 10, 2013 Judge
'dalbir'