Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharam Pal And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 20 August, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRM No.M-4011 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(221)
CRM No.M-4011 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision:20.08.2013.
Dharam Pal and others
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Gautam Thapar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Harsimrat Rai, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for
respondents No. 3.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of Calandra dated 20.09.2011 (Annexure P-11) under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 23.09.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.5 had filed a complaint against respondent No.3 Sandeep Sethi 2013.08.23 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-4011 of 2012 (O&M) -2- and others under Section 3 (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'Act'). Petitioner No.5 had got registered FIR No.61 dated 18.03.2009 under Sections 325, 323 and 34 IPC at Police Station Adampur against respondents No.3 and others. Security proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were also initiated against respondent No.3. However, later on, a compromise was effected between the parties and due to this reason, petitioner No.5 withdrew the complaint (Annexure P-1) filed by her. Petitioner No.5 did not support the prosecution case in FIR No.61 dated 18.03.2009 under Sections 325, 323 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Adampur and consequently, all the accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Proceedings initiated under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. were also dropped. However, now respondent No.3 had initiated proceedings under Section 182 IPC against the petitioners. The said proceedings were liable to be quashed being time barred.
Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand have opposed the petition and have submitted that respondent No.3 had been involved in false litigation by petitioner No.5 in connivance with other petitioners.
Annexure P-11 is the Calandra presented against the petitioners for initiation of proceedings against them under Section 182 IPC. A perusal of the same reveals that petitioner No.5 had initiated proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. against Sandeep Sethi 2013.08.23 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-4011 of 2012 (O&M) -3- respondent No.3 on 27.01.2005. The said proceedings were dropped for want of evidence on 28.06.2005. Bhajan Kaur-petitioner No.7 gave a false complaint to the Deputy Commissioner that respondent No.3 had illegally stored domestic gas cylinders in her house. However, when the house of the respondent No.3 was raided, the allegations levelled against him were found to be false. Complaint filed by petitioner No.5 under Section 3(x) of the Act was got dismissed as withdrawn. Respondent No.3 and other accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
It has been averred by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a compromise had been effected between the parties and due to that reason, complaint (Annexure P-1) filed by petitioner No.5 was got dismissed as withdrawn. Similarly, petitioner No.5 had not supported the prosecution case during trial in view of compromise effected between the parties and consequently, respondent No.3 and his co-accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them in FIR No.61 dated 18.03.2009 under Sections 325, 323 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Adampur vide judgment dated 12.06.2009 (Anexure P-2).
Section 468 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.--(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the Sandeep Sethi 2013.08.23 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-4011 of 2012 (O&M) -4- expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be--
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.
Section 182 IPC reads as under:-
"182. False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.- Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant-
(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts Sandeep Sethi 2013.08.23 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-4011 of 2012 (O&M) -5- respecting which such information is given were known by him, or
(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
Thus, a plain reading of the above two provisions reveals that cognizance could be taken by the Court with regard to commission of offence punishable under Section 182 IPC within one year. However, in the present case, Calandra in question has been filed on 20.09.2011 whereas, the complaints initiated by the petitioners were disposed of in the year 2005. Hence, the Calandra had been presented much after the expiry of period of limitation. Respondent No.3 was acquitted of the charges framed against him in FIR No.61 dated 18.03.2009 under Sections 325, 323 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Adampur vide judgment dated 12.06.2009. Similarly, the complaint under Section 3 (x) of the Act was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.09.2009 vide Annexure P-1. Even otherwise, parties had amicably settled their dispute. In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Calandra dated 20.09.2011 (Annexure P-11) under Section 182 IPC and all the Sandeep Sethi 2013.08.23 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM No.M-4011 of 2012 (O&M) -6- subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 23.09.2011 are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 20, 2013.
sandeep sethi Sandeep Sethi 2013.08.23 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document