Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Kumar Grover & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 31 May, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-33626 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-33626 of 2011
Date of Decision:-31.5.2012
Shiv Kumar Grover & Anr. ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.G.B.S.Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Raj Preet Singh Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab for the respondent.
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. (Oral)
Tersely, the relevant facts & material, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, in the wake of complaint of petitioner Shiv Kumar Grover, a criminal case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.311 dated 1.10.2007 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 326, 341, 427 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of certain witnesses, came to the conclusion that the information supplied by the petitioner in the indicated FIR was false. Thereafter, the concerned SHO prepared the Calendar (Annexure P2) to prosecute the petitioner and witness Navneet Aggarwal for the commission of offence punishable under Section 182 IPC.
2. At the same time, aggrieved by the conduct of the investigating agency, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P3), pertaining to the CRM No. M-33626 of 2011 -2- same very incident, under Sections 148, 307, 323, 324, 326, 341, 397, 427 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC, in which, the accused were summoned to face the trial for the indicated offences by the Magistrate, by virtue of summoning order dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure P4).
3. Petitioner Shiv Kumar Grover and his witness Navneet Aggarwal, did not feel satisfied with the initiation of criminal prosecution u/s 182 IPC against them and preferred the present petition, to challenge the impugned Calendar (Annexure P2), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that once the Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the complaint (Annexure P3) and summoned the accused, by way of summoning order (Annexure P4), then, the initiation and continuation of proceedings under Section 182 IPC are arbitrary, illegal and cannot proceed. They have also taken the objection of cognizance of the Calendar, in view of bar under Section 195 Cr.PC. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the petitioners sought to quash the impugned Calendar (Annexure P2) in the manner depicted here-in-above.
4. The respondent-State has refuted the prayer and filed the reply, inter- alia taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say, that the respondent has reiterated the allegations contained in the impugned Calendar (Annexure P2). However, it will not be out of place to mention here that the State has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.
6. As is evident from the record that, petitioner Shiv Kumar Grover has CRM No. M-33626 of 2011 -3- already filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P3), with regard to the same very incident, subject matter of FIR (Annexure P1). Taking cognizance of the complaint and preliminary evidence, the Magistrate has summoned the accused to face the trial for the pointed offences, by means of summoning order (Annexure P4). Once the Magistrate is seized of the subject matter of the FIR in the complaint, then, to me, the proceedings under Section 182 IPC is not only illegal but without jurisdiction as well. This matter is no more res integra and is now well settled.
7. An identical question came to be decided by this Court in case Kehar Singh v. State of Punjab 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 458, wherein it was ruled (paras 14 & 15) as under:-
"14. There is another aspect of the matter which can be viewed from a different angle. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner has already filed a complaint in regard to the same incident and after taking into consideration the preliminary evidence, the trial Magistrate has summoned the accused vide summoning order (Annexure P-2). That means, the subject matter of the case is subjudiced and the trial Magistrate is seized of the matter, relatable to truth or otherwise of the version projected by the petitioner in this context. In that eventuality, the proceedings under Section 182 IPC are not legally maintainable.
15. An identical question arose before this Court in case Ramesh Chand Versus State of Haryana, 2006(4) RCR(Criminal) 718. Having considered the matter deeply, it was ruled that once the petitioner has filed a private complaint and the accused have been summoned, then it cannot be said that the information supplied by the petitioner was false. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the pendency of complaint and summoning order in respect of the same offence, the proceedings under Section 182 IPC against the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue, has considerable force and the contrary arguments of the learned State Counsel 'stricto sensu' deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. The observations in the aforesaid judgment "mutatis-mutandis" are applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and are the complete answer to the problem in hand."
8. Therefore, the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
CRM No. M-33626 of 2011 -4-
9. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
10. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of complaint (Annexure P3), the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the impugned Calendar (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
31.5.2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
AS JUDGE
Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No