Criminal Misc. No.M-19604 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.M.No.M-19604 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 26.8.2011 Tirath Singh PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab and another RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri S.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J. This is a petition invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and praying for quashing of F.I.R. No.36 dated 19.4.2011 registered under Sections 447,427,379,506,148,149 I.P.C. at Police Station Sadar, Rupnagar. The F.I.R. was initiated on the complaint of one Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Rajinderjit Singh who alleged that her husband had died few years back and she was being harassed by her in-laws and was thrown out of the house whereupon she started residing with her sister Jasbir Kaur. On the basis of inheritance she was given the share of land measuring 3 bighas 6 biswas in Village Reduana, Gurdaspur. Barbed wire was fixed around the boundary after a wall had been constructed and one room was also constructed in this area. On 19.4.2011, Criminal Misc. No.M-19604 of 2011 -2- when the complainant was looking after her land, one Tirath Singh son of Mit Singh, Amandeep Singh son of Nirmal Singh, Kamal Singh son of Charan Singh and Charan Singh son of Ram Aasra armed with sticks and iron rods, came there and demolished the walls of her house and also demolished the construction made thereon and destroyed the poplar plants and violated her possession and abused her in the process. Thereafter Randip Singh reached there with DBBL gun and Manpreet wife of Tirath and Neelam wife of Kamal along with unidentified persons reached there and gave lalkara to kill the complainant and then Randip Singh pointed his rifle towards her and the complainant in order to save herself, ran away from the spot. It was alleged that the incident had been witnessed by karam Singh Sarpanch and Soni resident of Katlaur and a few other persons who were present there. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R. is an abuse of the process of law and a counter-blast to F.I.R. No.40 dated 17.3.2011 lodged by the petitioner against respondent No.2 and seven others wherein serious allegations were made against the accused persons alleging the commission of offence under Sections 323,325,341,506,148,149 I.P.C. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner received injuries by an iron pipe on the head, right leg and below the knee, as also on the arms and other parts of the body. He contended that it is because of this F.I.R. that the counter F.I.R. has been registered by the respondents. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted with no mechanism with the Court to comment upon the veracity of the allegations and the correctness thereof. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that under Section 482 Cr.P.C., there is an imminent and desirable constraint on the exercise of power by the Court in view of the aforesaid absence of mechanism. Criminal Misc. No.M-19604 of 2011 -3- In State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 604 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows :- “In following categories of cases, the High Court may in exercise of powers under Art.226 or under S.482 of Cr.P.C. may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or 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 a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-19604 of 2011 -4- contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 institution and continuance of the proceeding 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 mala fide 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. Where allegations in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified.” In view of the aforesaid, when the F.I.R. discloses the commission of an offence, the Court cannot observe that the allegations made therein are false and Criminal Misc. No.M-19604 of 2011 -5- motivated on the mere fact that earlier an F.I.R. had been registered at the behest of the petitioner. This would result in serious prejudice to the investigation of a case which is likely to ensue on the registration of the F.I.R. If the allegations are false and the investigating agency comes to such a conclusion, then they are not precluded from taking action against the complainant for filing false complaint and the provisions of Section 182 Cr.P.C. are meant specifically for this purpose. For the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is held to be without any merit and is dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) August 26, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO