Crl. Misc. No.M-15930 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-15930 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.05.2010 Harbans Singh etc. ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab etc. ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of complaint bearing No.59T/4.4.07/17.04.09 titled as Rajwant Singh vs. Harbans Singh under Sections 326, 325, 323, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC pending in the Court of JMIC, Nabha and summoning order dated 19.01.2010 and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the same. While challenging the same, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent along with his uncle and other relatives attacked petitioner Nos.1 and 3 and caused injuries to them on 18.07.2006 in the morning with sharp edged weapons. They were immediately admitted in the Rajindera Hospital, Patiala and both were Crl. Misc. No.M-15930 of 2010 2 medically examined. Subsequently, on the statement of petitioner No.1, an FIR bearing No.54 dated 18.07.2006 under Sections 447, 324, 323, 506 and 34 IPC has been registered against the respondent and his other relatives who have caused injuries to the petitioner etc. Thereafter, respondent No.2 connived with the local police and manipulated the injuries on his body along with his uncle and got admitted in the Hospital at Nabha. On his statement, a cross case was registered against petitioners except petitioner No.4 and 6. After the investigation of the cross case, challan has been filed in the Court. After about 10 months of the alleged incident and more than five months from the filing of challan, the respondent filed a false and frivolous complaint in the Court of JMIC, Nabha against the petitioners and three other persons. It was contended that the said complaint has been filed with oblique motive. The version of the respondent is false and incorrect and the complaint was, therefore, a misuse and abuse of the process of law as no offence has been committed by the petitioner. Heard. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR has already been filed concerning the same set of allegation and the present complaint wherein three more persons have been added amounts to misuse of the process of law, is without merit. A perusal of the complaint shows why the complaint was filed and the reason why the name of the other accused, as in the present complaint, do not find figure in the FIR. Para 5 of the said complaint is self explanatory and explains the same. The same reads as under :- “5. The police employees along with ASI Parkash Chand came to civil hospital Nabha to record the statement of the complainant. Complainant get his statement recorded before him. At the time of recording of statements, complainant only knows the Crl. Misc. No.M-15930 of 2010 3 name of accused No.1 to 3 i.e. Harbans Singh, Harjit Singh and Kulbir Singh and accused No.5 Ravinder Singh. The name of these persons were get recorded but the remained accused were identified by complainant and regarding them it was recorded that he can identify if brought before him. After inquiry by the complainant, he told the name and address of remaining accused to the police who are near relatives of Harbans Singh. Regarding this complaint and his father gave complaints that above mentioned accused persons be arrested and be involved in the case but SHO Dalbir Singh of PoliceStation Bhadson and ASI Parkash Chand have connived with the accused persons and they have not taken any action against the accused persons and a cross case has been registered illegally. A challan has also been filed against us in the court but from the above mentioned accused persons, challan has been filed only against accused No.1 to 4 i.e. Harbans Singh, Harjit Singh, Kulbir Singh and Mandeep Singh but no action has been taken against the remaining accused persons inspite of moving complaints by the complainant and giving name and addresses of the accused persons. Therefore, the complainant has no other remedy except to file the present complaint. Therefore, the complaint is being presented in this Hon'ble Court.” Thus, in view of the facts as apparent from the complaint itself, the same cannot be quashed just because FIR is also registered. The summoning Order has been passed after recording of the preliminary evidence, in which, the complainant appeared as CW-1, Gurdeep Singh appeared as CW-2 and Ranjit Singh appeared as CW-3 who corroborated the version of the complainant. CW-4 Dr. B.K. Chopra proved the MLR of Ranjit Singh, showing four injuries, as well as, MLR of the complainant Rajwant Singh, showing thirteen injuries. CW-5 Dr. Jarnail Singh was also examined who proved the X-ray report. Crl. Misc. No.M-15930 of 2010 4 Thus, the summoning Order is detailed, well reasoned and passed with due application of mind on the basis of preliminary evidence. No ground to quash the same is made out. Hence, no ground to quash the present complaint bearing No.59T/4.4.07/17.04.09 titled as Rajwant Singh vs. Harbans Singh under Sections 326, 325, 323, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC pending in the Court of JMIC, Nabha and summoning order dated 19.01.2010 is made out. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 26.05.2010 JUDGE gurpreet