Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balraj vs Sunil And Others on 5 September, 2012
Author: K.C. Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
Crl.M.No. M-25025 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.M.No. M-25025 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision : September 5, 2012.
...
Balraj
................Petitioner
vs.
Sunil and others
.................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri
Present: Sh. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Sh. Aniket Chauhan, Advocate for
Sh. Ashit Malik, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Sh. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5.
...
K.C. Puri, J.
Balraj Singh has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated 7.8.2008 (Annexure P-8) and that of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak, dated 10.10.2006 (Annexure P-7), with the prayer for summoning respondents No. 1 to 5 as accused in complaint No. 51/3 of 2005.
Briefly stated, Balraj Singh present petitioner, filed complaint under Section 499, 500, 120-B, 193, 195, 203, 218, 221 and 342 IPC Crl.M.No. M-25025 of 2008 -2- against Sunil, Baljit, Rishi Pal, SI Vijender Singh and ASI Daya Nand. The case of the complainant-petitioner is that complainant and his family were busy in their routine life. Civil suit titled as Ram Mehar vs. Surat Singh was filed by the father of the complainant. Due to this suit, the family members of accused No. 1 alongwith him gave beating to the complainant, his father and brother for which a criminal case against the accused was registered vide FIR No. 80 of 1998 at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak. The accused were pressurizing the complainant and his father to withdraw the civil suit as well as criminal case. Accused No. 1 joined hands with accused No. 2, 3 and 4 and conspired to rope complainant in false case. An outcome of the evil design was that false witnesses were introduced by accused No. 5. Balraj Singh and Rishi Pal claimed themselves as witnesses, whereas, Sunil Kumar alleged that he received fire arm injury. The complainant was acquitted vide judgment dated 18.2.2005. Accused No. 1, 2 and 3 have denied the occurrence reported in FIR No. 25 of 2003 and they have also denied the making of statement to the Investigating Officer of the case, i.e. accused No. 5. FIR No. 25 of 2003 was an evil design of accused No. 1 in connivance with accused Nos. 2 to 4. The complainant was picked up from his house on 25.1.2003 by accused No. 5 in connivance with other accused and was lodged in judicial lock up. His standing crops could not be properly looked after. The daughter of the complainant namely, Jyoti, who was taking her studies in Himalayan Public School, Rohtak, was forced to leave the studies and she was got admitted in Government School at village Makroli, Khurd. The complainant and his family members have been defamed in the eyes of the Crl.M.No. M-25025 of 2008 -3- relatives. The injuries on the person of accused No.1 were self inflicted but he only described them as fire arm injuries. The complainant suffered mental agony for two years and was ultimately acquitted on 18.2.2005. The complainant, his father Ram Mehar and brother Vijender remained in judicial lock up. During that period, accused No.1 alongwith other persons harvested wheat crop sown by the complainant in killa No. 23/1/1 measuring 6 kanals. That killa was on lease with the complainant from Gram Panchayat. FIR No. 89 dated 15.4.2003 was registered against accused No.1 and others, but no recovery was effected. The brother of the complainant, who is serving as a Constable in GRP has also been falsely implicated in case FIR No. 53 dated 29.1.2003 under Sections 186, 353, 332 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak, at the instance of accused No. 4 to harass and humiliate the complainant. The complainant was arrested on 25.1.2003 without any reason by accused No. 5 at the instance of accused Nos. 1 to 4.
Learned Magistrate, after appraisal of the preliminary evidence, summoned Sunil s/o Raghbir Singh and ASI Daya Nand to stand trial under Sections 211 and 195 IPC respectively. However, the complaint against the remaining accused was dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2006.
The said order dated 10.10.2006 was challenged by Balraj by filing revision No. 81 dated 22.11.2006. ASI Daya Nand has also filed revision against the said order. Both the revisions were decided vide order dated 7.8.2008 passed by Sh. R.C. Godara, Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. The revision preferred by the complainant for summoning the remaining accused was dismissed, whereas the revision preferred by ASI Crl.M.No. M-25025 of 2008 -4- Daya Nand was accepted and he was discharged.
Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 7.8.2008 passed by Sh. R.C. Godara, Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, the complainant has preferred the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that revision preferred by ASI Daya Nand was accepted on the ground that proceedings in the Court, as per provisions of Section 195 (b) (i) Cr.P.C., could be initiated only by filing application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the Court. It is submitted that in authority reported as Iqbal Singh Marwah and another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 178, the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that provisions of Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would apply only in case a forgery is committed in the Court. However, if a forged document is produced, in that case, the said provisions are not attracted and as such, there is no need to file complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that so far as the other accused are concerned, they have been wrongly left over by both the Courts below. Baljit and Rishi Pal were cited as witnesses in case under Section 307 IPC against the complainant. Their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by ASI Daya Nand. So, Baljit, Rishi Pal and ASI Daya Nand should have been summoned to stand trial in the complaint by the complainant. It is further contended that SI Vijender Singh has presented the challan. So, he is also liable alongwith accused No. 2, 3 and 5.
In reply to the above noted submission, both the counsel for the Crl.M.No. M-25025 of 2008 -5- opposite side have supported the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak.
It is submitted that so far as ASI Daya Nand is concerned, there is no allegation against him that he has any animus against the complainant. Sunil made a complaint against the complainant- now petitioner. Sunil was medico legally examined and injuries were found. ASI Daya Nand has simply investigated the case in accordance with the law. The Court has also framed charge under Section 307 IPC against the present petitioner. It was only on account of the fact that Sunil complainant and Baljit and Rishi Pal witnesses have resiled from their previous statement. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, has rightly held that complaint could be filed by the Court. The authority in Iqbal Singh Marwah's case (Supra), relates to production of forged document in the Court. There is no such dispute and as such petitioner cannot take benefit of the said authority. SI Vijender Singh has simply forwarded the challan. In fact, the matter has been compromised and on that account, the eye witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Lacerated wound could be the result of fire arm injury. So, prayer has been made for dismissal of the present petition.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the file of the case.
So, far as the legal remedy available to the parties is concerned, that has already been availed by them. The question now arises whether the case for invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out on Crl.M.No. M-25025 of 2008 -6- the facts of the present case, or not. The answer to that question is in negative.
So far as, Baljit and Rishi Pal are concerned, they have disowned the statement made in the previous case under Section 307 IPC, in which the present petitioner was acquitted. There is no other fact in preliminary evidence produced by the complainant, which made indictment of these two persons Baljit and Rishi Pal.
So, far as accused SI Vijender Singh is concerned, he has simply presented the challan, which was duly investigated by ASI Daya Nand. So, in these circumstances, both the Courts below have rightly not summoned these persons to stand trial in the complaint filed by the complainant.
So far as accused ASI Daya Nand is concerned, he has been summoned by the trial Court to stand trial for offence under Section 195 IPC. However, the revision preferred by him against his order of summoning was accepted. The Constitutional Bench authority in Iqbal Singh Marwah's case (Supra) lays down the law that complaint is maintainable in case the document is forged outside the Court, but is produced in the Court. However, in the present case, the allegation is that ASI Daya Nand has given or fabricated false evidence with an intention to procure conviction of the petitioner. For a criminal offence, there must be animus i.e. criminal intention. ASI Daya Nand has simply recorded the statement of accused No.1 and got him medico legally examined. He has investigated the earlier case under Section 307 IPC. The very fact that charge under Section 307 IPC was framed against the petitioner in earlier case goes a long way to prove that prima facie ASI Daya Nand cannot be Crl.M.No. M-25025 of 2008 -7- said to be guilty. He in discharge of his legal duty conducted the investigation of the case. The petitioner has not even alleged animus of ASI Daya Nand against the petitioner.
There is no illegality in the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Otherwise also, petitioner has failed to prove that there is any abuse of process of the Court and that case for invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been made out.
Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed.
( K.C. Puri )
September 5, 2012 Judge
chugh