Crl. Misc. No. M-34137 of 2009 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-34137 of 2009 Date of Decision: 04.8.2011. Sarmukh Singh and others ........Petitioners Vs. Paramjit Singh ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. H.K.Aurora, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondent. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the complaint No. 94 of 2001 (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order dated 22.5.2009 (Annexure P-5). The case of the complainant, as per complaint (Annexure P-1) in brief, is that on 13.9.1999, complainant along with Kahan Singh had gone to village Mewa Miani on a scooter to survey their fields. The complainant along with Kahan Singh went to the house of Ex-Sarpanch Sajjan Singh but he was not available in his house. Thereafter, complainant along with Kahan Singh went to the house of Amrik Singh. At about 9.15. P.M. when the complainant reached the passage of the village, Sarmukh Singh armed with dang, Ranjit Singh armed with kirpan, Jagjit Singh armed with datar, Amar Nath armed with dang were standing there. On seeing the complainant, Sarmukh Singh gave a lalkara and Crl. Misc. No. M-34137 of 2009 (O&M) -2 - shouted that the complainant be taught a lesson for not compromising the case registered against them. Ranjit Singh tried to give a kirpan blow on the head of the complainant but the same landed on his little finger as he had tried to save himself. Jagjit Singh gave a datar blow which hit on the little finger of the left hand of the complainant. Thereafter, the accused inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant. On raising of alarm by Kahan Singh, Amrik Singh and Hazara Singh, the accused fled away from the spot. The police had recorded the statement of the complainant and the accused had sought anticipatory bail but the same was rejected. However, no challan was presented against the accused. Hence, the complaint was filed. On the basis of the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the trial court passed the summoning order dated 22.5.2009. Hence, the present petition by the accused-petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint had been filed after a long delay. The FIR filed by the petitioners qua the occurrence which had taken place on 13.9.1999, was pending trial. The complainant had led evidence in the complaint after much delay. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to Crl. Misc. No. M-34137 of 2009 (O&M) -3 - secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, 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 FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR 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 Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR 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. Crl. Misc. No. M-34137 of 2009 (O&M) -4 - (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 proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings 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. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” In the present case, the complainant has levelled specific allegations against the petitioners in the complaint. It has also been averred in the complaint that although the statement of the complainant was recorded by the police but no challan was presented against the accused. Anticipatory bail sought by the petitioners was dismissed. Although the complainant had taken a long time in concluding his preliminary evidence but that in itself would not be a ground to quash the complaint as the criminal case Crl. Misc. No. M-34137 of 2009 (O&M) -5 - pending against the complainant party in the FIR No. 112 dated 14.9.1999 lodged by the petitioners is also pending. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground for quashing of the complaint No. 94 of 2001 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 22.5.2009 (Annexure P-5) is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 04, 2011 Gurpreet