Criminal Misc. No. M-32651 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-32651 of 2008 Date of Decision: 13.05.2010 1. Garib Dass son of Mehnga Ram; 2. Narinder Kumar son of Garib Dass; 3. Tajinder Kumar son of Garib Dass; all residents of village Pandori Nijjran, District Jalandhar. ... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Punjab. 2. Harvinder Pal Singh son of S. Ujjagar Singh, resident of village Pandori Nijjran, District Jalandhar. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1 – State. Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate, for the complainant/respondent No. 2. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing Criminal Complaint No. 132/1/05 (Anneuxre P1), titled as, 'Harvinder Pal Singh Vs. Garib Dass and others', under Sections 323 and 448 IPC, the summoning order dated 17.01.07 (Annexure P7), Criminal Misc. No. M-32651 of 2008 2 and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, has been filed by the petitioners. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 05.01.05, at about 7.30 PM, Harvinder Pal Singh, complainant, found Garib Dass, Balwinder Pal, Tajinder Kumar, and, Narinder Kumar, standing outside his house, in the street. On seeing the complainant, Tajinder Kumar, accused, started abusing him, for not allowing them, to put the drainage pipe, in the street. Thereafter, Garib Dass, accused, raised an exhortation, that complainant, should not be spared and taught a lesson, as a result whereof, Tajinder Kumar, accused, caught hold of him, and, Balwinder Pal, co-accused (non-applicant), who was under the influence of liquor, at the relevant time, gave a blow just below his right eye with a steel punch, which he was holding, in his hand. Thereafter, the petitioners, also gave fist blows, on the person of the complainant. When the complainant, raised an alarm, his brother Surinder Kumar, reached there, to rescue him, but he was also given a punch blow, on his head, by Balwinder Pal, co-accused (non-applicant). Thereafter, the complainant and his brother, raised an alarm, as a result whereof, many persons from the locality gathered there. After causing injuries, on the person of the complainant and his brother, Balwinder Pal (non-applicant), trespassed into his (complainant's) house, where he slipped, and, struck against the handle of the hand pump, as a result whereof, he sustained an injury, on his head. In the meanwhile, Baldev Singh, Sarpanch, and, Master Sarabjit Singh, also reached there, on seeing Criminal Misc. No. M-32651 of 2008 3 whom, the petitioners, ran away. Thereafter, Baldev Singh, Sarpanch, and, Master Sarabjit Singh, took away Balwinder Singh (non-applicant), from the house of the complainant. It was stated that, the motive behind the aforesaid occurrence, was that, Garib Dass, one of the petitioners, wanted to discharge dirty water, from his latrine, into the drain, running in front of the house of the complainant, but, he was prevented from doing so with a request to fix the pipes towards his own house. It was further stated that, thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police, but, in vain. Ultimately, left with no other alternative, the aforesaid complaint, was filed. 3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the trial Court, summoned the petitioners, to face trial, for the offences, punishable under Sections 323 read with Section 34, and, 448 IPC. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant petition, has been filed by the petitioners. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, case FIR No. 06 dated 08.01.05, under Sections 307, 323, 325, and, 342 read with Section 34 IPC, was registered, against Harvinder Pal Singh, Bhupinder Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Dilbagh Singh, and, Surinderpal, with regard to the occurrence, the counter-version whereof, has been set up, in the present complaint. He further submitted that, in that case, the complainant/respondent No. 2, Criminal Misc. No. M-32651 of 2008 4 alongwith his co-accused, were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, vide judgement (Annexure P3). He further submitted that, in that case, in his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Harvinderpal Singh, complainant, did not set up the version, as has been set up, in the instant complaint that, the petitioners, caused injuries, on his person. He further submitted that, had the petitioners, caused injuries, on the person of Harvinderpal Singh, then he being the accused, in the aforesaid FIR, would have certainly set up such a version. He further submitted that, after about seven months of the registration of FIR No. 06 dated 08.01.05, the complainant/respondent No. 2, woke up, from the sleep and falsely set up the counter-version. He further submitted that, had the occurrence taken place, in the manner, as now alleged, by the complainant/respondent No. 2, in the complaint, in question, he would not have failed, to set up the same, in the earlier case, in which, he alongwith the other persons was the accused. He further submitted that, the instant complaint, is nothing but an after-thought, which is filed, with a view, to falsely involve the petitioners, to create a defence. He further submitted that, the complainant/respondent No. 2, also concealed the factum of the FIR, referred to above, in the instant complaint. He further submitted that the continuance of the complaint, the summoning order, and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, will amount to the abuse of the process of the Court, and, the same, are liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent No. 2, Criminal Misc. No. M-32651 of 2008 5 submitted that, the order, summoning the petitioners, is revisable, but, no revision, has been filed, against the same, before the Court of Sessions, and, as such, the petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not maintainable. He further submitted that, the complainant/respondent No. 2, was securing his liberty, and, that was why, the complaint, was not filed, at that time, and, delay was caused. He further submitted that, the disputed questions of fact, cannot be adjudicated upon, in the proceedings, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which are summary in nature. He further submitted that continuance of the complaint, the summoning order, and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are, thus, not the abuse of the process of the Court. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. Section 482 Cr.P.C., vests the Court with wide powers, to prevent injustice, and to do substantial justice. If the Court, is of the opinion that, on account of continuance of particular criminal proceedings, injustice shall occasion, to the petitioners, and the same, are nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court, then, power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be exercised. Admittedly, FIR No. 06 dated 08.01.05, under Sections 307, 323, 325, and, 342 read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Adampur, with regard to the occurrence, which took place, on 05.01.05, was registered, on the basis of the statement of Garib Dass, complainant (now petitioner No. 1), on the allegations, that at about 7.30 PM, on Criminal Misc. No. M-32651 of 2008 6 that day, Harvinderpal Singh, accused (now respondent No. 2), Surinder Pal, Sukhwinder Singh, and, Bhupinder Singh, residents of village Pandori Nijjran, came in the street, in front of their house, and, when he and his son Balwinder Pal, came, at the gate of their house, they abused them, and, caused injuries, on their person. Trial, in that case, was held, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Vide judgement dated 09.08.08 (Annexure P3), the complainant/respondent No. 2, and his co-accused, were convicted for various offences, and sentenced to undergo various terms of imprisonment. Against that judgement, appeal is stated to be pending, in this Court. Annexure P4, is the statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., of the complainant/respondent No. 2, which was recorded, in that case. As stated above he was accused therein. No version, as has been set up, in the present complaint, was set up therein. Had such a defence been available, or, in existence, at the time of making statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in that case, the complainant/respondent No. 2, would have certainly set up the same therein. Even, during the course of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, in that FIR, no such version, was probably set up. For the first time, after about seven months of the registration of the FIR, referred to above, i.e. after a long delay, the instant complaint, under Sections 323 and 448 IPC, Police Station Adampur, regarding the incident dated 05.01.05, at 7.30 PM in village Pandori Nijjran was set up. All these circumstances, clearly go, to show, that the version, set up by the complainant, in the instant complaint, is Criminal Misc. No. M-32651 of 2008 7 nothing but an after-thought, just with a view, to falsely involve the petitioners. No doubt, no revision-petition, against the order of summoning, was filed, by the petitioners. It is settled principle of law, that if, from the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the allegations, contained in the complaint, the Court, comes to the conclusion, that the proceedings, are nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court, then, power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can well be exercised, without resorting to, in the first instance, to the remedy of filing a revision-petition. Even if, it is assumed, for the sake of arguments, that the complainant/respondent No. 2 and his co- accused, were, in the first instance, busy in securing their liberty, and, could not file the complaint immediately, yet, the version, which has been set up, in the complaint, could certainly be set up by them, in the earlier case, relating to FIR No. 06 dated 08.01.05, under Sections 307, 323, 325, and, 342 read with Section 34 IPC, registered against them. There is no answer, to this question, coming- forth, from the side of the complainant/respondent No. 2. The complainant/respondent No. 2 also concealed the material fact, in the complaint that FIR in regard to the said incident already stood registered against them. He, thus, approached the Court of the Magistrate with soiled hands. There are no disputed facts, which require adjudication, in this case. The complaint, the summoning order, and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are, thus, nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court, continuance whereof, shall cause great injustice, to the petitioners. The same, are Criminal Misc. No. M-32651 of 2008 8 liable to be quashed. 9. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-32651 of 2008, is accepted. Criminal Complaint No. 132/1/05 (Anneuxre P1), titled as, 'Harvinder Pal Singh Vs. Garib Dass and others', under Sections 323 and 448 IPC, the summoning order dated 17.01.07 (Annexure P7), and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, qua the petitioners, are quashed. 10. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned, immediately. 13.05.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE