Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh And Another vs Dalbir Singh on 1 August, 2012
Author: K.C.Puri
Bench: K.C. Puri
Criminal Misc. No.M-20218 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Misc. No. M-20218 of 2010
Decided on 01.08.2012.
Avtar Singh and another ...... Petitioners.
Versus
Dalbir Singh .... Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. PURI
Present :- Mr. Sukhdeep Parmer, Advocate for the petitioners.
K.C.PURI, J.
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short - Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the complaint No.3 of 19.3.2007 (Annexure P-2) and summoning order passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara dated 14.6.2008 (Annexure P-5) vide which the petitioners-accused were summoned to stand their trial under Sections 292, 323, 452 and 506 of the IPC.
2. Briefly stated Dalbir Singh filed a complaint under Sections 292, 452, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short - the IPC) against R.K.Pathania, SDO, PSEB, Ravinder Singh @ Raju and Avtar Singh also an employee of PSEB. It is mentioned in the complaint that on 4.2.2006 at 7.30p.m., the complainant and his mother Jaswinder Kaur were Criminal Misc. No.M-20218 of 2010 2 present in the house. Accused R.K.Pathania, Ravinder Singh @ Raju and Avtar Singh claiming themselves to be the employees of Punjab State Electricity Board, forcibly entered his house with an intention to annoy criminally trespassed in the house of the complainant. R.K.Pathania, told the complainant that a sum of Rs.10,000/- is due against him and he has intentionally not paid the same and has filed applications against them in the Department. The complainant replied that they have no power to recover any amount forcibly as no amount is due against him. Moreover, Punjab State electricity Board can recover the amount as per law. The complainant requested the accused to come in the morning and he would settle all the things in the Panchayat. The accused became aggressive and told that the complainant be taught a lesson. Accused R.K.Pathiana told Ravinder Singh and Avtar Singh petitioners to catch hold the complainant and took him to department. They pulled the hair with bad intention to insult the complainant. The accused started abusing Jaswinder Kaur and threatened her to face dire consequences. The complainant raised a noise and accused ran away from the spot.
3. Before summoning, complainant appeared as his own witness and examined his mother Jasbir Kaur as CW-2 and closed the preliminary evidence.
4. The learned trial Court vide order dated 14.6.2008 summoned the accused to face trial under Sections 292, 323, 452 and 506 of the IPC.
5. Feeling dis-satisfied with the order dated 14.6.2008, Criminal Misc. No.M-20218 of 2010 3 Accused/petitioners Avtar Singh and Ravinder Singh have preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint and the consequent proceedings thereon.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that accused R.K.Pathina was serving as Sub Divisional Officer whereas petitioner Avtar Singh was working as Lineman and Ravinder Singh as Assistant lineman on 2.7.2006 and inspection was made by the office of SDO in respect of the electric connection of complainant and they found that illegal connection from the main line and that the electricity was stolen by the complainant/respondent. Copy of the notice dated 12.7.2006 was issued to the complainant and copy thereof is Annexure P-1. The complainant thereafter wrongly mentioned the date of occurrence as 4.2.2006 and the complaint was filed on 19.3.2007 i.e. much after the issuance of notice Annexure P-1 dated 12.7.2006 regarding theft. It is contended that complaint was filed after the inquiry of the occurrence was made. Except the statements of the complainant and her mother, no other witness has been examined. There is no corroboration of their statement by any medical evidence. It is contended that in case such type of complaints are entertained in that case the staff of the PSEB would not be able to function. The trial Court has ordered the summoning order without applying its mind. Ravinder Singh petitioner was on leave on 4.2.2006 and as such he could not be present at the spot. SDO, a Gazetted Officer would be the last person to ask for the amount in respect of the electricity charges except by notice. The complainant is aggrieved against the notice and has filed the present Criminal Misc. No.M-20218 of 2010 4 complaint just to overawe the petitioners.
7. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioners carry weight.
8. The occurrence, according to the complainant has taken place on 4.2.2006 but complaint was filed on 19.3.2007 i.e. after more than one year. The electricity Board has issued notice dated 12.7.2006 in which it is mentioned that on 2.7.2006 connection of the complainant was inspected and the complainant was found stealing the energy by putting wire in the main service line and by installing motor of 2BHP. It so seems that after serving notice of theft of energy and regarding payment of dues, the complainant, filed a complaint to overawe the PSEB staff including the SDO. There is no corroboration to the testimony of the complainant and his mother. No MLR has been produced as per record. According to the complainant his hairs were pulled but no medical evidence or any other type of evidence to support that assertion has been produced. No explanation has been given by the complainant that even after issuance of notice dated 12.7.2006 why he has kept mum for eight months to file the present complaint. It so seems that in order to overawe the SDO, who has visited the spot, the impugned complaint has been filed.
9. Court is conscious of the fact that normally provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked for quashing the criminal proceedings at the thrash but where there is the clear abuse of the process of the Court and in that case the Court has to step into and quash the proceedings. In case such type of complaints are entertained, in that case, Criminal Misc. No.M-20218 of 2010 5 the staff of the Electricity Board would not be able to function. In every case, where notice of recovery is issued in that case, the consumer will rush to the criminal Court to lodge a complaint to put pressure on the staff. The facts of the case writ large that present complaint is the clear abuse of the process of the Court.
10. Consequently, the complaint No.3 dated 19.3.2007 (Annexure P-2) and summoning order dated 14.6.2008 and the consequent proceedings in pursuance to that summoning order stand quashed against the petitioners as well as against R.K.Pathania, SDO, PSEB.
11. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
August 01 , 2012 ( K.C. PURI ) sv JUDGE