Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhveer Singh vs Daljit Kaur And Others on 3 May, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Revision No. 1479 of 2013 (O&M) -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Revision No. 1479 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.5.2013.
Lakhveer Singh ........Petitioner
Vs.
Daljit Kaur and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. M.S.Lobana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
.....
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) challenging the order dated 28.2.2013.
Petitioner had filed a complaint against the respondents for commission of offence punishable under Section 500, 506, 170, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'' for short) and Section 3 and 4 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('Act' for short). The case of the petitioner, in brief, was that he was a member of the Schedule Caste and had worked as a President of the Youth Wing of Lok Bhalai Party. He had also collected funds from the inhabitants of the village to construct cremation ground. Petitioner had also worked for the welfare of the farmers. Respondents were not members of the Scheduled Caste and with the mala fide intention had connived with each other to lower the prestige of the petitioner in general public. Respondents had forged and fabricated false applications levelling baseless Crl. Revision No. 1479 of 2013 (O&M) -2 - allegations against the petitioner and had forwarded the same to the Police Station Dasuya. Respondents were having strained relations with the petitioner. Petitioner had taken land from respondent No. 1 Daljit Kaur on rent for a period of three years. Respondent No. 1 took back the possession of the land after two years and had insulted the complainant by calling him "chamar". However, when the matter was taken up in the panchayat, respondent No. 1 had apologized in this regard. Vir Kaur executed a registered sale deed dated 18.11.2004 in the name of her son Jaspal Singh and the petitioner. At the instance of respondents No. 1 to 3, petitioner had been falsely implicated in proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. Later on, the said proceedings were dropped. Respondent No. 1 had damaged the crop of the petitioner and had failed to pay ` 20,000/-, the agreed lease amount. On 11.4.2005, petitioner was arrested at the instance of accused No. 1 to 3 and his finger and footprints were taken. On 12.4.2005, petitioner was released by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in view of compromise effected between the parties. Respondent No. 1 had moved an application dated 28.1.2005 before Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur and application dated 1.2.2005 to Station House Officer, Dasuya. Other respondents had also made false statements to the authorities on 10.4.2005. Proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner and he was ultimately discharged on 27.5.2005. Petitioner was interested in becoming a Press Reporter and had approached the Deputy Commissioner in this regard. Respondents, however, made false statements before the police that the petitioner was a Crl. Revision No. 1479 of 2013 (O&M) -3 - mischievous person with a view to defame him. Petitioner was running a shop of Electronics, Music Centre and STD/PCO on Dasuya-Hajipur road since 9.6.2004. The same had to be closed in May 2005. In this regard, petitioner had suffered damages to the tune of ` 2,00,000/-.
In support of his complaint, petitioner led his preliminary evidence. The Magistrate vide order 9.3.2010 ordered the summoning of the respondents to face the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 500, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Act. The case was committed to the Court of Special Judge vide order dated 25.4.2012 Annexure P-4. The learned Special Judge vide the impugned order dated 28.2.2013 has held that no offence could be said to have been committed by the respondents under Section 500, 506, 420, 465, 467, 471 IPC and Section 3 of the Act. However, respondent No. 1 could be said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 427 IPC. The matter was sent back to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for proceeding further with the trial against respondent No. 1 under Section 427 IPC. Hence, the present petition.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.
The learned Special Judge, while passing the impugned order has held as under:-
"It is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that false allegations were levelled against character of complainant for defaming him and statements had been fabricated for submitting false report by police Crl. Revision No. 1479 of 2013 (O&M) -4 - and as such, case for offence under Sections 3(viii) and 3(ix) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act is made out. That submission of counsel for complainant has no force because after going through the complaint as a whole, it is made out as if complainant and Daljit Kaur had grouse because of getting back of the land by Daljit Kaur before expiry of period of lease. If police has submitted report after recording statements of accused persons qua complainant being not of good character, then those allegations were not made public and as such, prima facie offence under Section 500 IPC not made out. If complainant was involved in proceedings under Sections 107, 151 Cr.P.C. and he had been discharged, then that act even do not prima facie show as if complainant has been defamed. However, when all the allegations made in the complaint taken into consideration, then they leave no manner of doubt as if main grievance of complainant is qua sufferance of false statements by accused in course of proceedings, in which report was required to be submitted by police to Deputy Commissioner. Certainly after going through provisions of Section 3(viii) and 3(ix) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act, it is made out that institution of false, malicious and vexatious suit or other legal proceedings against member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe is an offence. Even furnishing of false and frivolous information to any public servant for causing Crl. Revision No. 1479 of 2013 (O&M) -5 - annoyance or injury to member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is an offence under Section 3(i) (ix) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act. Submissions suffered by accused before police not shown to be false or factitious or frivolous because sole statement of PW1 in the absence of any other evidence can not be relied upon in this respect, particularly when the allegations levelled in Para No. 13 of the complaint qua accused not belonging to the scheduled caste does not get corroboration from statement of PW2 Gurbax Singh. This PW2 Gurbax Singh claimed as if accused except Beant Raj are non-scheduled caste. This means that Beant Raj accused is a member of the scheduled caste even as per PW2. No official of police called for proving the record of the applications submitted by complainant or of the recorded statements. Even record of the enquiry conducted by police has not been summoned and nor record of the office of the Deputy Commissioner summoned for proving the alleged false reports is the submission of counsel for respondents. Complainant was discharged in proceedings under Sections 107, 151 Cr.P.C. because prosecution failed to produce any evidence despite availing number of opportunities is a fact born from perusal of document Ex.C31. So, the allegations qua false involvement of complainant in proceedings under Sections 107, 151 Cr.P.C. not borne from the record virtually. Copy of the registered notice sent by Lakhbir Singh to Daljit Kaur is Crl. Revision No. 1479 of 2013 (O&M) -6 - produced on record as Ex.C35, but to Balwinder Singh, Arjun Singh, Harpal Singh, Manjit Singh and Beant Raj produced as Ex.C36 to Ex.C40. Copies of the postal receipts have also been produced as Ex.C41 to Ex.C44. Reply to that notice was sent through Ex.C47. If in the reply, it is claimed that complainant is a mischievous person, who always remains indulging in illegal activities to create unnecessary dispute in the family and in the village or that complainant is a cunning person, then those allegations not shown to be made public because there is nothing in statements of CW1 to CW3 that these allegations were made public.
CW1 claims as if Daljit Kaur had been calling him as Chamar, but that it is not alleged in public view or at public place. Rather the place, where these words uttered by Daljit Kaur not mentioned anywhere in the complaint or in statements of CW1 to CW3 and as such, one of the necessary ingredients attracted provisions of Section 3(i((x) of SC/ST Act is missing. When such necessary ingredients missing, then accused liable to be acquitted as per law laid down in case Kavindra Nath Thakur Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009(5), Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal), 330. Even as per law laid down in case Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others, 2008(4), Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal), 171, if accused abused complainant in the name of caste, but without stating that accused is not member of the scheduled Crl. Revision No. 1479 of 2013 (O&M) -7 - caste or scheduled tribe or that such words not uttered with intention of insulting or intimidating, then case for offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act not made out. If damage to crop of complainant caused by Daljit Kaur for causing loss of ` 2000/-, then for that case for offence under Section 427 IPC at the most prima facie can be said to be made out and not qua commission of offence under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act. Prima facie evidence of forgery and fabrication of the statements not adduced and as such, case for offence under Section 420, 465, 467, 471 IPC prima facie not made out. Defamatory words not shown to be made public and as such, case for offence under Section 500 IPC even prima facie not made out. It is not the case of the complainant that threats were administered by accused to him for assaulting or intimidating him and as such, case for offence under Section 506 IPC even prima facie not made out. From the entire material available on record namely statements of CW1 to CW3, at the most, it can be said as if prima facie material available qua destruction of the crop of worth of ` 20,000/- of complainant by Daljit Kaur. So, virtually no case qua commission of offence punishable under Section 3 of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Act made out, but at the most case for offence under Section 427 IPC may be made out against Daljit Kaur alone. Obviously the summoning order passed without any reasoning. Crl. Revision No. 1479 of 2013 (O&M) -8 - As offence under Section 427 IPC is triable by the court of Magistrate and as such, this case deserves to be transferred to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, for proceeding further in the matter. Even as per Section 228 Cr.P.C., if the court framing charge is of opinion that there is no ground for presuming that offence of such nature is committed as is triable exclusively by court of Sessions, then the court to transfer the case for trial to CJM or any other JMIC. As at the most from the material produced on record, case for offence under Section 427 IPC alone prima facie made out against Daljit Kaur and as such, case transferred to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, for 16.3.2013 where complainant and accused Daljit Kaur required to appear. As allegations of defamation or of false and fabrication of the record and of cheating not prima facie borne against remaining accused and as such, remaining accused are discharged. Complainant and Daljit Kaur required to appear in court of CJM, Hoshiarpur, on 16.3.2013. This file be sent to that court. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, after framing charge qua offence under Section 427 IPC against Daljit Kaur will proceed further in the matter as per law. "
The reasons given by the learned Special Judge, while coming to the conclusion that no offence under Section 500, 506, 420, 465, 467, 471 IPC and Section 3 of the Act was made out against the respondents, are sound reasons. Merely because Crl. Revision No. 1479 of 2013 (O&M) -9 - proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. had been initiated against the petitioner would not prima facie lead to the inference that the same were initiated with a view to defame the petitioner. Further, the petitioner had failed to prove on record enquiries conducted by the Deputy Commissioner in proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. to establish the fact that the said proceedings were malicious or had been started with an intention to defame the petitioner. Further, petitioner had failed to establish that he had been insulted by calling him "chamar" in public view or at a public place by respondent No. 1. It is also evident that the land in question was not owned by the petitioner. As per the case of the petitioner, he had taken the land on lease from respondent No. 1. In case land had been taken by the owner before the expiry of lease period, the petitioner could have resorted to civil remedy but no such proceedings were initiated by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the learned Special Judge rightly came to the conclusion that at the most it can be said that respondent No. 1 had prima facie committed the offence qua destruction of the crop of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the learned Special Judge rightly remanded the matter back to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial of respondent No. 1 with regard to commission of offence punishable under Section 427 IPC.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE May 03, 2013 Gurpreet