Punjab-Haryana High Court
Panna Lal And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 20 November, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(i) CRR No.3690 of 2014
Panna Lal and others
...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
(ii) CRR No.3691 of 2014
Panna Lal and others
...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
Date of Decision: November 20, 2014
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.A.S.Gill, Advocate
for the petitioners..
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
This order will dispose of above-stated two petitions being arisen from same judgment and involving same dispute.
Both the revision petitions have been filed challenging the impugned judgment dated 22.09.2014 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby the revision filed by respondent No.2 against the judgment dated 03.04.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, has been allowed. VINEET GULATI 2014.11.25 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRR No.3690 of 2014 and connected case -2- The facts are taken from CRR No.3690 of 2014.
The brief facts as stated in the petition are that a false and frivolous FIR No.89 dated 08.12.2006 under Sections 186, 323, 353, 148 and 149 IPC has been registered against the petitioners and other co-accused. Hukam Chand and others filed a suit for possession of 35 marlas of land out of khasra No.117 against Harish Kumar and others. The suit of Hukam Chand and others was decreed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 15.02.1988. Against the said judgment and decree, Shiv Mandir Parbandhak Committe filed an appeal before learned District Judge, Jalandhar but the same was dismissed. The Regular Second Appeal filed by Shiv Mandir Parbandhak Committee was also dismissed on 13.12.1988. Hukam Chand and others filed an execution application and Narinder Singh, Baliff was appointed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Jalandhar to give possession to the decree holders. As per the allegations, the accused mentioned in the FIR, interfered in the proceedings regarding the delivery of possession by the Bailiff and assaulted to deter the public servant from discharge of his duty and caused injury to him.
It is stated that Calandra under Section107/151 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners and other co-accused for the incident mentioned in the FIR was also filed. The Executive Magistrate vide order dated 18.05.2007 discharged the petitioners from Calandra.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that when the petitioners are already discharged in VINEET GULATI 2014.11.25 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.3690 of 2014 and connected case -3- the proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C., therefore, now the FIR, which is also regarding the same occurrence and on the same facts, is liable to be quashed as it amounts to double jeopardy.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record.
Learned JMIC, Jalandhar while relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in Surinder Kaur vs. Rajinder Singh, 1999(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 862, discharged the petitioners vide order dated 03.04.2012. A revision was filed against the above-said order and the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 22.09.2014 set aside the order dated 03.04.2012 passed by learned JMIC, Jalandhar. Aggrieved from the judgment dated 22.09.2014, present revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners.
I have gone through the judgment passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and he has discussed in minute details regarding the facts that proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. are only preventive measure for breach of peace and the same do not amounts to trial. Secondly, the Court discussed the provisions of Section 300 Cr.P.C. and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. While discussing the law point of Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.A.Venkataraman vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1954 SC 375, held that doctrine of double jeopardy will not apply in the present case as the accused have not been prosecuted and punished for the same offence. The findings of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in the judgment dated VINEET GULATI 2014.11.25 16:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.3690 of 2014 and connected case -4- 22.09.2014 are correct and as per law and do not require interference from this Court. No illegality has been pointed in the above-said judgment. Bailiff and the police official, who were obstructed from doing the duty, were not the parties even in the proceedings under Section 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar has correctly held that the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as trial for the same offence. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.A.Venkataraman's case (supra), the judgment passed by this Court in Surinder Kaur's case (supra) will not apply as in that case the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated between the parties only.
In view of the above discussion, I find that no illegality has been committed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar while passing the impugned judgment dated 22.09.2014.
Therefore, finding no merit in both the revision petitions, the same are dismissed.
November 20, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
VINEET GULATI
2014.11.25 16:12
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh