Himachal Pradesh High Court
Raj Kumar Singla & Anr vs State Of H.P on 31 May, 2023
Author: Satyen Vaidya
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 571 of 2021.
Reserved On: 23rd May, 2023.
.
Decided on : 31st May, 2023.
Raj Kumar Singla & Anr. ...Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. ....Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioners: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge .
By way of instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of complaint No. 53/3 of 2019, titled as State of H.P. vs. Raj Kumar Singla & Ors. pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that from the bare reading of the complaint no offence is made out against the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 20:32:40 :::CIS...2...
petitioners. They have been summoned for offences under Section 186 .
and 189 of the IPC, whereas none of the ingredients, even for prima facie establishment of such offences, are available on record. It is further submitted that the complaint is otherwise not maintainable for noncompliance of provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"). Another objection raised to the maintainability of complaint is noncompliance of provisions of Section 155 of the Code.
3. Respondent/State has opposed the prayer on the ground that the petitioners had obstructed H.C. Virender Kumar from discharging his official duties and he was also threatened of being injured by the petitioners. The filing of complaint against the petitioners is justified. On such grounds, the dismissal of the petition has been prayed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully.
5. Section 195 of the Code bars taking of cognizance for offence under Section 186 of the IPC except on the complaint of concerned public servant or some of other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. In the case in hand, the complaint has ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 20:32:40 :::CIS ...3...
been filed by the State through Sub Inspector Nirmal Dass, Incharge of .
Police Station Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. The police official H.C. Virender Kumar was administratively subordinate to Sub Inspector Nirmal Dass, therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of non-
compliance of Section 195 of the Code.
6. Objection with respect to non-compliance of Section 155 of the Code also deserves to be rejected for the reasons that no investigation is carried out by the police officials for investigating the allegations of commission of offence under Section 189 of the IPC.
There is no legal bar that the Magistrate cannot take cognizance for offence under Section 189 of the IPC on a complaint and as per the provisions of the Code the complainant always need not be the victim himself.
7. Further, in order to analyse whether the learned Magistrate had sufficient material before him for summoning the petitioners for offence under Sections 186 and 189 of the IPC, it will be necessary to refer to the contents of complaint and to test such contents at the touchstone of ingredients necessary to constitute above noted offence.
::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 20:32:40 :::CIS...4...
8. It is revealed from the complaint filed before the learned .
Magistrate that on 20.03.2019 H.C. Virender Kumar, No. 13, of police station Kasauli received information about some dispute at Hotel R. Medan, Kasauli. He reached the hotel, where some customers had raised dispute with the petitioners and another person in the capacity of owners and manager of the hotel respectively. With the intervention of the police officials, the matter was amicably settled between the disputing parties. Notwithstanding the settlement of dispute, petitioners and their manager allegedly misbehaved with H.C. Virender Kumar, No. 13. Despite repeated requests of the police official, the petitioners and their manager did not agree. H.C. Virender Kumar was allegedly threatened by petitioner No.2 by alleging that "they would see who called them at police station, none of them will come to police station". They also threatened H.C. Virender Kumar that by using their political clout, petitioners would get the head constable transferred.
9. Section 186 of the IPC reads as under:-
"186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions. --Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 20:32:40 :::CIS ...5...
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine .
which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. "
10. To prima facie establish the necessary ingredients of offence under Section 186 of the IPC there has to be voluntarily obstruction to any public servant in discharge of his public function.
In the case in hand, it is an admitted fact that the dispute inter-se the private parties had been amicably settled. There is no material or allegation to suggest about the exact nature of public function which was being performed by H.C. Virender Kumar and how such public function was obstructed. The allegations as of mis-behaviour by the petitioners that too in vague terms, cannot be said to have satisfied the requirements of section 186 IPC.
11. Section 189 of the IPC reads as under:-
"189. Threat of injury to public servant.--Whoever holds out any threat of injury to any public servant, or to any person in whom he believes that public servant to be interested, for the purpose of inducing that public servant to do any act, or to forbear or delay to do any act, connected with the exercise of the public functions of such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 20:32:40 :::CIS
...6...
12. The necessary ingredients for establishing the offence .
under the aforesaid section are that some threat of injury should be held out to a public servant and its purpose should be to induce the public servant to do any act, or to forbear or delay to do any act, connected with the exercise of the public functions of such public servant. Again, looking at the facts of the case, no such assertion has been made on behalf of the police official H.C. Virender Kumar, No.13.
He has simply mentioned that petitioners by showing their political clout had threatened to get the police official transferred. Assuming such allegation to be correct, there is nothing to suggest that such threat, firstly, was for the purpose of inducing the public servant and secondly, was for any act, which petitioners required the public servant to do, or to forbear or delay the doing of such act. Facts on record do not by themselves suggest that the police official was induced by petitioners either to do something or forbear from doing that thing which was connected with the public functions of the public servant. It is also not clear that what had prompted petitioners to refuse to go to the Police Station. The evidence of amicable resolution of dispute between the petitioners and their customer is already there.
::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 20:32:40 :::CIS...7...
13. This Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under .
Section 482 of the Code is empowered to pass orders to prevent the abuse of process of Court. As the requisite and necessary ingredients for commission of offences under Sections 186 and 189 of the IPC are not made out even by assuming the facts narrated in the complaint to be proved, further prosecution of petitioners will be without any fruitful purpose and will be a sheer abuse of process of Court.
14. In the light of above discussion, the petition is allowed and the complaint No. 53/3 of 2019, titled as State of H.P. vs. Raj Kumar Singla & Ors., pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
15. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Satyen Vaidya) Judge 31st May, 2023.
(jai) ::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2023 20:32:40 :::CIS