Crl. Misc. No. M – 21011 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M – 21011 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision:- 15.3.2010 Balkar Singh & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & Anr. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. R.S.Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.S.Teji, AAG, Punjab. Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Petitioners – Balkar Singh and Harpal Singh, have come up with the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of Complaint No. RBT 375/13.9.2006/20.12.2006, titled as Baj Singh Versus Balkar Singh and another” filed under Section 3 (X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506 IPC, (Annexure P-1) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist. Class, Tarn Taran, District Amritsar as well as Summoning Order dated 17.9.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by the JMIC, Tarn Taran District Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that Rajbir Kaur daughter of Karnail Singh and sister of Bhag Singh respondent No.2/complainant was major and had a love affair with Satnam Singh, who Crl. Misc. No. M – 21011 of 2008 -2- is son of the real sister of her mother Amrik Kaur. Said Satnam Singh took away that girl with him with her consent to Bombay in the Month of August 2006 and performed the marriage with her at that place. Thereafter they started living as husband and wife. When Karnail Singh came to know about that marriage, he accompanied by respondent No.2 Kashmir Singh and Amrik Singh went to Harjinder Singh @ Gogi and Avtar Singh, brothers of petitioner No.1, who were working as transporters in Bombay from the last 15 years and with whom Satnam Singh was working as driver for the last 7-10 years. After searching for the girl for 4-5 days they came back to their village. Thereafter, Karnail Singh gave a false complaint against them and Satnam Singh in Police Station – Sarai Amanat Khan. Investigation was conducted by Milkha Singh, SHO of that police station and it was found that Rajbir Kaur was major and had gone with Satnam Singh with her consent for performing the marriage on account of their love affair. It was found that no role in that affair was played by Balkar Singh- petitioner No.1 and his family members. On 12.9.2006 Karnail Singh filed a false complaint before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh, levelling allegations against Balkar Singh (petitioner No.1), Satnam Singh, Gogi and Avtar Singh. That Commission entrusted the inquiry to Additional Director General of Police, Internal Vigilance, Punjab, Chandigarh, who conducted a thorough enquiry. During that inquiry it was found that all the allegations levelled in the complaint, including the allegations pertaining to the alleged incident dated 6.9.2006 at 5 PM, were totally false. Regarding the same allegations respondent No.2 filed the impugned private complaint. They and their family members are being Crl. Misc. No. M – 21011 of 2008 -3- harassed by respondent No.2 and his father Karnail Singh by filing such successive complaints. They are innocent and have been falsely implicated. No offence is made out from the contents of the complaint. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents and the same was contested by them. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that regarding the same allegations, as levelled in the complaint, Karnail Singh-father of respondent No.2-complainant, filed a similar complaint before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission. It was enquired into by Additional Director General of Police and allegations were found to be flase. The finding so recorded through that enquiry itself is the ground for quashing the complaint. Once a finding has been recorded against the complainant-party in the police inquiry, it can easily be said that this complaint is the result of malice. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be quashed, keeping in view the principles laid down in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 (SC), 602. On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned State counsel and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the enquiry was not conducted by the Additional Director General of Police himself and was got conducted through the officer in-charge of the Police Station. Narinder Singh ASI was employed in the CID Branch of Punjab Police, who is the brother of Satnam Singh and by exercising his influence he got recorded a wrong finding in favour of the petitioner. Even if, such a finding is recorded that is not a ground for quashing the complaint. No such Crl. Misc. No. M – 21011 of 2008 -4- malicious intention on part of respondent No.2 stands proved. It cannot be said from the documents placed on record that the complaint has been filed as a result of such malice or is a result of vexation. Section 482 of the Code envisages three circumstances under which inherent jurisdiction of this Court may be exercised; namely; (i) To give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent the abuse of the process of Court and (iii) to secure the ends of justice. No inflexible rule can be laid down, which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. While exercising the powers under this Section, this Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This inherent jurisdiction though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised Ex-debito Justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of the which alone the courts exists. From the authoritative decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court including Bhajan Lal's case (supra), some of the principles for excercising this jurisdiction are enumerated below:- (1)Where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused; (2)where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that on the basis thereof no prudent person can ever reach at a just conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused; Crl. Misc. No. M – 21011 of 2008 -5- (3) Where the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance from the accused with a view to spite him due private or personal grudge; (4) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible. It is also well settled that inherent power should not be exercised to stiffle a legitimate prosecution. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based upon sound principles. The Court is required to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether the conviction would be sustainable and on premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. Any proceeding instituted on a complaint exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where a complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. In the present case, it is not the case of learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence is made out from the bare perusal of the complaint. At the time of arguments, it was not disputed that on the same facts a complaint was made before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission by the father of respondent No.2-complainant and after enquiry, a finding was recorded against him. However, it is the case of Crl. Misc. No. M – 21011 of 2008 -6- respondent No.2-complainant that this finding was procured by the petitioners as a result of exercising influence of Narinder Kumar ASI brother of Satnam Singh. The same is disputed question of fact and cannot be decided while disposing of this petition. The mere recording of the finding in favour of the petitioners by the police is no ground for coming to the conclusion that the contents of the FIR are false or that the complaint has been lodged with a mala fide intention. It has recently been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Vangawatti Naghaiah (2009) AIR SC 2646 that allegations of mala fide against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself the basis of quashing proceedings. On the basis of the facts brought to the notice of this Court, it cannot be concluded that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 – complainant is frivoulous, vexatious or oppressive. There is no ground for quashing the FIR. The petition is dismissed accordingly. March 15, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge