Criminal Misc. No.M-7149 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Misc. No.M-7149 of 2008 Date of decision : 3.12.2009 Pritpal Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Darshan Singh ...Respondent 2. Criminal Misc. No.M-8605 of 2008 Varinder Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Darshan Singh ...Respondent 3. Criminal Misc. No.M-7610 of 2008 Palwinder Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Darshan Singh ...Respondent 4. Criminal Misc. No.M-2905 of 2008 Sarabjit Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Amarjeet Kaur Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners (in all the petitions) Mr. S.D.Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bindu Goyal, Advocate for respondent-Darshan Singh (in all the petitions). Mr. Arshwinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General,Punjab (in Criminal Misc. No. M-2905 of 2008) Criminal Misc. No.M-7149 of 2008 -2- **** S. D. ANAND, J. These four petitions apply for quashing of complaint dated 13.1.2006 (Annexure P-3) and also the summoning order dated 15.10.2007 (Annexure P-4) granted by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala, District Ludhiana on perusal of the preliminary evidence. Also applied is for the quashing of all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Criminal Misc. No. M-7149 of 2008 and Criminal Misc. No. M- 7610 of 2008 had been filed by the petitioners who were police officials posted at the concerned Police Station at the relevant point of time. Their commonality of grievance is as under:- Sohan Singh, a brother of respondent-complainant-Darshan Singh, had filed a complaint before the Punjab Human Rights Commission and had alleged, in the course thereof, that as many as 15 persons (non- petitioners) in Criminal Misc. Nos. M-7149 of 2008 and No. M-7610 of 2008 had belaboured them on the indicated date with a view to be able to dispossess them from their land and to obtain possession thereof. On investigation, the allegations were found to be false. However, thereafter respondent-complainant Darshan Singh filed the present complaint (Annexure P-3) making similar allegations in respect of that very occurrence but against as many as 23 persons (including the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Nos. M-7149 of 2008 and 7610 of 2008). The essential grievance of the petitioners herein is that the very contradiction indicated above is adequate enough to justify an inference about the falsity of the complaint and further that they had nothing to do with the alleged occurrence because they are police officials and they had no axe to grind Criminal Misc. No.M-7149 of 2008 -3- **** in the impugned incident. Insofar as the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Nos. M-2905 of 2008 and M-8605 of 2008 are concerned, the averment made in the course of the petitions is that the complaint against them too deserve to be quashed as it had earlier been found, on investigation by the police, to be false. They also have a grievance that no role had been attributed to them. Even the Punjab State Human Rights Commission got the matter enquired into and the complaint made by the party opposite was found to be false. It is also the grievance of the petitioners therein that the present complaint is a counter-blast and aimed at harassing the petitioner therein just because they are related to the rival party of the respondent of the respondent- complainant Darshan Singh. In Criminal Misc. No. M-2905 of 2008, the grievance of the petitioners is that their names did not figure in the initial complaint filed by Sohan Singh (brother of respondent-complainant-Darshan Singh) and they have been introduced as attackers only in the subsequent complaint filed by Darshan Singh. It is also their grievance otherwise that the police had, on investigation, found the presentation made by the party opposite to be false and a similar finding had also been recorded by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission. In Criminal Misc. No. M-8605 of 2008, reliance is placed upon the fact that the police had, on investigation, found the petitioner Gurcharan Singh to be innocent and further that there are certain contradictions, as between the complaint made by Sohan Singh to the Punjab Human Rights Commission and also the present complaint. It would be apparent, from a perusal of the above noticed facts, that there is a noticeable amount of commonality of challenge insofar Criminal Misc. No.M-7149 of 2008 -4- **** as the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Nos. M-7149 of 2008, M-7610 of 2008 and M-2905 of 2008 are concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised a foundational challenge by arguing that the falsity of the allegations is evident from the very fact that the names of the petitioners in the aforesaid three Criminal Miscellaneous did not, at all, figure in the complaint made by Sohan Singh, a brother of the respondent-complainant-Darshan Singh, to the police and also the Punjab State Human Rights Commission. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant-Darshan Singh resisted the plea by arguing that even the averred plea would not justify quashment of the proceedings which have to culminate only after a trial. It already stands noticed in an earlier part of this judgment that petitioners in Criminal Misc. Nos. M-7149 of 2008 and No. M-7610 of 2008 are police officials. Their names concededly did not figure in the complaint made by Sohan Singh (brother of respondent-complainant- Darshan Singh) to the police and also the Punjab State Human Rights Commission. The same factual scenario also applies to the petitioners in Criminal Misc. No.M-2905 of 2008. I have not been persuaded to accept the presentation made on behalf of the respondent-complainant that a complaint would none-the- less be competent inspite of the above noted contradictions which are momentous in character. If the petitioners herein had any role in the impugned incident, there is no reason why Sohan Singh would not have named them in the earlier complaint. The fact of their omission from the complaint made by Sohan Singh and the fact of their inclusion in the complaint filed by respondent-complainant-Darshan Singh is itself Criminal Misc. No.M-7149 of 2008 -5- **** suggestive of falsity of the latter complaint. However, the above reasoning would not apply to the petitioners in Criminal Misc. No.M-8605 of 2008 as their names did figure in the complaint filed by Sohan Singh and also in the complaint filed by Darshan Singh. Whether the impugned complaint is a counter-blast or not and whether the contradictions relied upon by the petitioners herein are sufficient to demolish the case lodged by the respondent-complainant-Darshan Singh or not would be adjudicated upon only at the trial. In that view of things, no plea for quashment would be acceptable. In the light of the foregoing discussion, Criminal Misc. Nos. M- 7149 of 2008, M-7610 of 2008 and M-2905 of 2008 shall stand allowed inasmuch as allowance of the proceedings therein would be apparently a sheer abuse of process of the Court; while Criminal Misc. No. M-8605 of 2008 shall stand dismissed. December 03, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE