Crl. Misc. No. M-16113 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-16113 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: July 2, 2010 Karamjit Singh Gill ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. ADS Sukhija, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. GURDEV SINGH, J. Petitioner-Karamjit Singh Gill, has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for quashing FIR No. 82 dated 14.9.2007 registered at Police Station Panjokhra Sahib, Ambala, under Sections 452 and 506/34 IPC and the subsequent proceedings conducted therein. It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner is an old man of 71 years. There is long background regarding the registration of this FIR which goes back to the time when the dispute started between him on the one side and his mother and three brothers on the other side, when he challenged the partition of the family properties, which was effected by his mother and other brothers. He was successful in getting set aside that Crl. Misc. No. M-16113 of 2008 2 partition and the appeal filed by the petitioner before the competent authority was decided in his favour. His brothers challenged the order of the Appellate Court before the court of Commissioner, Ferozepur Division but even that appeal was dismissed on 29.3.2007. A revision was also filed which was dismissed on 10.9.2007. The criminal cases are being got registered against him since the year 1982 and the present FIR is another link in the chain of the prosecution being launched against him by his mother, his brothers and their wives on account of his having opposed the partition of the family properties. Almost on identical allegations, FIR No. 10 dated 20.1.1984 was got registered against him under Sections 452 and 506 IPC with the allegations that he, alongwith some miscreants, forcibly entered into the house of the complainant at the night time and when the Sarpanch and the other people came to that place, he ran away with his companions. He was acquitted in that case. On the same allegations having been levelled against him by his mother, FIR No. 32 dated 11.3.1998 was registered under Sections 452 and 506/34 IPC for which he was again prosecuted. Again on similar allegations the present FIR has been got registered by Manjit Kaur Gill-respondent No.2/complainant. It is highly improbable that he, being an old person of 78 years, would come to Ambla all the way from Moga just to threaten that complainant. The common feature in all these cases, which will further expose the manipulations, is that all these cases were got registered after exerting pressure through higher officers and the incidents mentioned therein were of much prior time from the date of the registration of those respective FIRs. The present FIR is highly motivated act on the part of the complainant with a view to harass and pressurize him for having opposed the complainant and his brothers in Crl. Misc. No. M-16113 of 2008 3 civil litigation. He has retired as Development Officer from the Life Insurance Corporation of India and is leading a retired life with his wife, who has also retired as a school teacher. Due to his old age and prostate surgery, which was done in the year 2005, and the surgery of his eyes, which was done in the year 2006, he has gone weak in health and is not in a position to move about and commit such acts, as narrated in the FIR. His brother Tejinder Jit Singh and Varinder Jit Singh are on high posts in the Army and are influential persons. They enjoy good friendship with various high dignitaries, like the Governor of Punjab and, as such, are in a position to manipulate false cases against him. It is a case where process of the law has been misused in connivance with the police. On notice of motion having been issued, respondent No.2/complainant filed a detailed reply controverting the allegations levelled by the petitioner. She pleaded therein that the petitioner had been residing at Moga, whereas all other relatives were living at distance places and in their absence he had been trying to grab their property by manipulating ex-parte decrees, which have been set aside by the courts. No partition was ever effected and the case was remanded back for fresh adjudication of the matter and the matter is sub-judice before the court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Moga. The petitioner tried to kill his own mother, who got registered the FIR, which is mentioned in para 9 of the petition. The prosecution could not be proceeded on account of the old age of that complainant. The petitioner got the case transferred to another place by levelling false allegations against the Magistrate. He is in the habit of taking the law into his hands. With the help of local goondas, the petitioner forcibly trespassed into her house and two FIRs were got lodged. He is Crl. Misc. No. M-16113 of 2008 4 trying to mislead the court by referring to the civil dispute between him and his brothers. After due investigation, the petitioner has been correctly charged for the offences committed by him. The petitioner is habitual in tampering with the records and has gone to the extent of manipulating the record of the Supreme Court regarding which FIR No. 278 dated 18.8.2006 was registered against him under Sections 420, 511, 197 and 120-B IPC. The challan in this FIR has already been put in before the court, after prima facie case was made out against him. The petitioner filed his rejoinder to the reply of respondent No. 2 in which he denied the allegations levelled against him in that reply. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence is made out from the bare reading of the FIR In fact, such like FIRs are being lodged repeatedly by the mother and brothers of the petitioner, in order to pressurize him. The wording of all those FIRs makes it very clear that the story mentioned in the present FIR is manipulated one and no such occurrence ever took place. A false FIR has been got lodged by respondent No.2 on account of malice against the petitioner. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is not the first criminal act which has been committed by the petitioner. He is continuously harassing his mother and brothers by criminally trespassing into their properties and by extending threats and by committing other illegal acts. A number of criminal cases were registered against him and he was convicted in one of such cases. The offences mentioned in the FIR are clearly made out from the contents thereof and it cannot be said that a false FIR has been got lodged by Crl. Misc. No. M-16113 of 2008 5 respondent No.2 on account of malice. For proper appreciation of the the matter in issue, the relevant portion of the FIR is re-produced below:- “On night 25/26 August, 2007 at about 2300 hours, when I was alone at my house Karamjit along with two other bad elements entered my house after climbing the boundary wall and started banging my front door. I did not open the door and was terrified as he kept using abusive and threatening language stating that “ if I ever came to Moga regarding share of my property he will kill me and eliminate my whole family.” I immediately rung up my elder brother Lt. Col. T.S. Bajwa (Retired) who is also residing at Ambala Cantt. for help. On his arrival Karamjit Singh and his associates fled away in a car. I spent the whole night sitting all alone in fear as Karamjit Singh has criminal bent of mind and has many criminal cases registered and pending against him (Antecedents of Karamjit Singh are enclosed herewith for your kind perusal as Appendix- B).” The offences of criminal trespass and criminal intimidation are clearly made out from the above said contents of the complaint. The motive on the part of the petitioner to commit these offences can easily be made out from para No.2 of that FIR, which is re-produced hereunder:- “2. I have inherited some urban and rural property from my in laws at Moga (Punjab). For the past number of years one of my brother-in-laws Mr. Karamjit Singh has been harassing, threatening and intimidating me with a view to usurp my share Crl. Misc. No. M-16113 of 2008 6 of property. Mr. Karamjit Singh had earlier attempted to kill my old mother-in-law, late Mrs. Jagjeet Kaur resident of village Landheke Moga and for this criminal act of Karamjit Singh FIR No. 32 dated 11.3.1998 was registered against him at P.S. Sadar Moga and he was arrested and prosecuted. Later my mother-in- law even debarred Karamjit Singh and gave a share of her property to me as per her registered “WILL” No. 4043 dated 16.10.2001 (Photostat copy attached as Appx-A). Karamjit Singh has been constantly harassing, threatening and intimidating me so that I do not visit Moga and claim my share in property and protect my interest.” It is the admitted case of the parties that a number of FIRs are registered against the petitioner. The details thereof are given in the list filed by respondent No.1 with her reply. As per that list, 12 FIRs have already been registered against the petitioner regarding various offences. In view of that the question of the story put forward in the present FIR being improbable does not arise. As per the principles laid down in State of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others 1991 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 383, a complaint/FIR can also be quashed, if it is proved on the record that the same has been filed with a malafide and vexatious intention in order to wreck vengeance. It is also well settled proposition of law that disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into while deciding such a petition. The following principles were laid down in Bhajan Lal's case (supra). 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their Crl. Misc. No. M-16113 of 2008 7 face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Whether the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officer under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the Crl. Misc. No. M-16113 of 2008 8 institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Further in Indian Oil Corpn. Versus NEPC India Ltd. and others (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 736, the principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to quash a complaint and criminal proceedings were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The following principles were laid down in Indian Oil Corpn (supra):- (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. Crl. Misc. No. M-16113 of 2008 9 (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, Crl. Misc. No. M-16113 of 2008 10 for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed of, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The text is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.” Thus, the facts, as disclosed in the FIR, are to be taken on their face value in order to determine if any offence is made out there from or not. As already stated above, the offences of criminal trespass and criminal intimidation are clearly made out from the contents thereof. In the circumstances of the present case, it cannot be concluded that respondent No. 2 has filed this complaint maliciously in order wreak the vengeance. No ground is made out for quashing the same. The petition is dismissed accordingly. July 2, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE