Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanwar Pal Singh @ Bittu And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 1 October, 2012
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-2944 of 2010 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-2944 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision : 01.10.2012
Kanwar Pal Singh @ Bittu and others ......Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate with
Mr. Dilpreet Singh, Advocate and Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioners
Ms. Gagan Mohini, AAG, Punjab
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
****
RITU BAHRI , J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of F.I.R No. 125 dated 08.06.2005 u/ss 124-A/153-A/153-B and Section 188 I.P.C registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar.
The allegations against the present petitioners are that on the eve of anniversary of operation blue star, which took place on 05.06.1984, the petitioners were taking out a procession in which certain slogans and speeches were made. F.I.R is reproduced as under:-
"When we were talking to each other, in the meantime a procession of Dal Dhalsa in which Kanwarpal Singh alias Bittu son of Attar Singh resident of Sector 17-A, Rani Ka Bagh, General Secretary Dal Dhalsa, Crl. Misc. No. M-2944 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Harcharanjit Singh Dhami, President Dal Khalsa, resident of Hoshiarpur, Satnam Singh Vice President resident of Paunta Sahib Sarabjit Singh Ghuman, Press Secretary, Dal Khalsa resident of Ludhiana, Sawinder Singh District President resident of Kot Khalsa, Balraj Singh resident Bhalaipur, Avtar Singh Jalalabad, Kashmir Singh, Kuldip singh doctor, Arpal Singh, Baldev Singh Granthgarh, Surinder Singh Talabpura, Amrik Singh Ajnala, Darshan Singh Sabhiala, Gurdeep Singh Kalkat, Harvinder singh , Sarwan Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Jaswinder Sringh Giani, Prabhjot singh and Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakhi etc, after getting together were raising slogans in favour of Khalistan, that Bhindrawala was a saint Soldier, who woke up the community, Sant Jarnail Singh Babbar Lion, we will take your revenge. The Government of loin cloth and cap will rule behond Yamuna, Hindu, Hindi, Hindustan will rule and nobody else will rule, Kanwarpal Singh Bittu and Stanam Singh Paunta Sahib were giving provocative speeches and were inciting people to form Kahlistan and were saying that the wounds of Operation Blue Star are yet not healed. They would not forget the wounds and would not pardon the accused. We would only rest after formation of our separate State Khalistan. We may have to do many sacrifices of life. They do not agree with the Constitution of India."
Mr. Navkiran Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that if the allegations were taken on its face value, no offence under under Sections 124-A/153-A/153-B were made out against the petitioners and therefore the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process Crl. Misc. No. M-2944 of 2010 (O&M) -3- of Court.
Reference has been made to order dated 13.01.2006 passed by this Court whereby on the application of anticipatory bail of the petitioners, it has been stated that the petitioners have joined the investigation and have supplied the V.C.D contained alleged anti national speeches and was in the custody of police, therefore, they were not required for custodial interrogation. In the said CD no such allegations were ever made or raised by the petitioners which would lead to offence under Sections 124-A/153-B. This aspect has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Balwant Singh and another vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 1785. Further reference has been made to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme court in a case of Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 95 where the scope of validity of Section 124-A and Section 505 IPC was considered and it was held that the provisions of Section if read as a whole along with explanations make it reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended or have a tendency to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence. The criticism of public measures or comment on Government action however strongly worded would be within reasonable limits and would be consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. It is only when the words, written or spoken etc which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law an order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest Crl. Misc. No. M-2944 of 2010 (O&M) -4- of public order.
These sections have further been dealt with by referring to the above said Supreme Court judgments in the case of Lt. Col Partap Singh (Retd.) resident of H. No. 92, Sec 18-A, Chandigarh vs. U.T. Chandigarh through the Home Secretary U.T. Chandigarh passed in Crl. Misc No. M- 11926 of 1991 on 18.12.1992 (P-2) whereby the F.I.R against the petitioner was quashed on the ground that the mere demand for formation of separate State through non-violent and peaceful means would not in any manner incite or create violence or possibly could have tendency to lead to the disruption of the State or public disorder or to undermine the sovereignty, territorial integrity of India or the security of the State. No offence under Sections 124-1/153-A IPC and Section 4(2) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act are made out against the petitioner and subsequently, F.I.R was quashed.
On notice, a reply has been filed by the respondents specifically stating in paragraph 2 of their reply that the video recorded CD took into police custody was seen by the respondents and found that there is nothing incrimination or inflammatory slogan was seen in this video CD prepared by HC Harvinder Singh No. 612 a the time of resentment procession from Railway Station, Amritsar to Golden Temple Complex. The challan has been prepared but kept pending for want of prosecution sanction required under Section 196 Cr.P.C Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Gurmail Singh Crl. Misc. No. M-2944 of 2010 (O&M) -5- has informed the Court that during the pendency of the petition, the challan was presented on 06.01.2012 under Section 188 IPC and after grant of sanction to prosecute the petitioner on 23.04.2012 and challan was presented on 24.04.2012 u/s 124-A/153-A/153-B IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The question whether demand of a separate State without breaching violence has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in cases of Balwant Singh and another vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 1785 and Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 95. This view has been followed by this Court in Lt. Col Partap Singh (Retd.) resident of H. No. 92, Sec 18-A, Chandigarh vs. U.T. Chandigarh through the Home Secretary U.T. Chandigarh passed in Crl. Misc No. M-11926 of 1991 on 18.12.1992 (P-2), Simranjit Singh Mann vs. State of Punjab passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-35002 of 2007 on 22.04.2008(P-3) and Kashmir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab passed in Crl. Revn No. 1679 of 2009 on 20.10.2009 (P-4).
The instant case is squarely covered by the view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Case in Balwant Singh's case (supra) Applying the ratio of the above said judgments, F.I.R No. 125 dated 08.06.2005 u/ss 124-A/153-A/153-B and Section 188 I.P.C registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar is quashed qua petitioners.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
01.10.2012 (RITU BAHRI)
G.Arora JUDGE
Crl. Misc. No. M-2944 of 2010 (O&M) -6-
G.Arora