IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-10572 of 2010 Date of Decision:6.9.2010 Dalbagh Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, 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.(Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal complaint vide criminal complaint No. RBT 199 of 2008 titled as Sarwan Singh v. Dilbag Singh and others registered under Section 307, 148 and 149 IPC read with Sections 25,27,54 and 59 of the Arms Act pending in the Court of JMIC, Patti,l District Tarn Taran and consequently, to quash the order for summoning the petitioners dated 20.12.2007 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti and to quash all subsequent proceedings arisen out of the same. While praying for quashing of the complaint one of the main ground submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner were found innocent. It is also submitted that the matter was enquired into by the DSP as well as Superintendent of Police in regarding the manipulation made by Gurmukh Singh party by fabricating injuries on the person of Suba Singh and Sarwan Singh. These two police officers visited the spot and the statements of both the parties were recorded and ultimately, he found that the version which is given by Gurmukh Singh CRM M-10572 of 2010 -2- party namely Suba Singh and Sarwan Singh was totally a false and fabricated story. They in fact did not receive any injury and they got prepared the fabricated injury on the person of Sarwan Singh and Suba Singh and got a false case registered against the petitioners' party. Whereas in the present complaint specific allegations have been levelled which read as under: “Accused Bhagwant Singh raised lalkara that Gajjan Singh party should not escape. Bhagwant Singh fired from the rifle towards us with the intention to murder which hit to my uncle Suba Singh on his left elbos by touching his left elbow. Iqbal Singh fired a shot from his gun with the intention to kill at us and the pallet thereof hit to my right leg. We raised alarm Marditta Marditta and I just to save myself ran towards the farm-house of Surjit Singh. My uncle Suba Singh because of his old age fell down and my father Gajjan Singh saved himself by taking shelter at the back of the tubewell room.” Even the motive has been specified in the said complaint. Thus, the argument that Gajjan Singh has not received any injury, is a matter of evidence. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 in para 103 of the said judgment gave a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection an that too in the rarest of rare cases. Further, in para 102 listed the categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power should be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or CRM M-10572 of 2010 -3- otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The same were listed as under: 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 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 not 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 a 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. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceedings is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings 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. CRM M-10572 of 2010 -4- 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. A legitimate prosecution cannot be quashed at this stage and the same does not fall under one of the conditions as mentioned in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others (Supra). No ground. Dismissed. 6.9.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE