Criminal Misc. No. M- 21499 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 21499 of 2010 Date of decision:-26.5.2011 S.S. Mann (Sukhbir Singh Mann) ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, AAG Haryana. RITU BAHRI J. The petitioner S.S. Mann has sought quashing of complaint dated 14.8.2006 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, (case No.182/1 of 23.4.2008) and the summoning order dated 05.8.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad. The petitioner was posted as SDO, Badrola in the year 2002. On 2.8.2002 petitioner alongwith his party comprising of Shri Kulbir Singh JE, Mohan Lal Verma Lineman, Bhoop Singh C/A etc. reached at Village Chandawali in official Jeep No.HR-29-B-3945. They had gone to meet the Superintending Engineer, Faridabad and the Executive Engineer DHBVNL Ballabgarh. The jeep was being driven by Kulbir Singh JE in the absence of official driver. On their visit to the workshop of one Rajpal son of Rattan Lal, resident of Village Chandawali, they found that Rajpal was committing theft of electricity by making joint with a wire to the feeder cable to his workshop, where various types of drilling and welding machinery was functioning. A checking report dated Criminal Misc. No. M- 21499 of 2010 -2- 2.8.2002 was prepared and an FIR No.385 dated 10.8.2002 under Sections 379 IPC and Section 39 read with Section 50 of the Indian Electricity Act was registered against Rajpal at Police Station Sadar, Ballabgarh. Another FIR No.371 under Sections 332 and 353 IPC was also registered against the said Rajpal for committing offence for causing interruption in discharge of official duty by the Electricity Department. In the above background, Rajpal Yadav was having grudge against the petitioner, who had caught him committing theft of electricity. While checking the premises of Rajpal Yadav, they were assaulted by his employees and the police reached the place of occurrence and saved the employees of Electricity Department. Thereafter, a report detailing the said incident was forwarded to the Executive Engineer DHBVNL Ballabgarh on 2.8.2002 (Annexure P-6). A recommendation was made for registration of FIR and subsequently the above mentioned FIR was registered against Rajpal Yadav in the above background. On 2.8.2002 after checking the premises of Rajpal when the petitioner alongwith his team was returning through their official jeep, one Hukam Singh son of Ramji Lal tried to open the back door of the jeep mistaking the official jeep to be a private vehicle. He received simple injuries on his face and fell down and received simple injuries on his face, elbow and hip joint. Hukam Singh was about 70 years of age, was known to Rajpal. He instigated Hukam Singh to get an FIR registered against the petitioner on the allegation that he was driving the jeep No. HR-29-B-3945 rashly and negligently on wrong side of the road. The jeep hit Hukam Singh and caused injuries. A detailed investigation was carried out by SI/SHO Police Station Ballabhgarh and after verification by the Superintendent of Police, Faridabad, a cancellation report was submitted before the trial Court on 14.8.2002 (Annexure P-10). The complainant Hukam Singh filed a protest petition on 14.8.2006, Criminal Misc. No. M- 21499 of 2010 -3- which was accepted and the said petition was treated as private complaint on 05.8.2009 (Annexure P-2). Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate counsel for the petitioner has sought quashing of complaint on the ground that the protest petition has been accepted on the ground that the statements of eye witnesses were not recorded by the police during investigation. During the investigation of this case on 3.8.2002 statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of PW Satpal was recorded by the Investigating Officer. Rajpal Yadav, one of the witness in the complaint had chosen not to appear before the police and did not get his statement recorded before the police. The facts were verified from Mohan Lal LM, Kulbir Singh JE and Bhoop Singh CA by the SHO Ram Dutt and thereafter a cancellation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared on 14.8.2002. Reference has been made to the affidavit of Kulbir Singh (Annexure P-4) dated 09.8.2002, in which he has stated that he was driving the official vehicle as the driver of the Department Jitender Pal was on leave. In the affidavit, he has stated that an old man came from behind the jeep and tried to open the rear door forcefully and suffered minor injuries. The old man belonging to village Machghar and after receiving injuries he has gone to his Village in someone's jeep. Reference has been made to the statement made by Hukam Singh (Annexure P-9) in which he has stated that the jeep belonging to Electricity Department was being driven by SDO S.S. Mann in a rash and negligent manner. It struck him, as a result of which he fell down. Rajpal son of Rattan Lal and Satpal son of Bhim Singh picked him up and admitted in Government Hospital, Ballabgarh. In view of the fact that the official driver was on leave and Kulbir Singh, JE was driving the official vehicle, the statement of complainant Hukam Singh cannot be believed that the jeep was being driven by petitioner S.S. Mann. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, counsel for the State has argued that after that Criminal Misc. No. M- 21499 of 2010 -4- the Illaqa Magistrate has not accepted the cancellation report and after summoning the petitioner, now fixed the case for precharge evidence on 16.8.2010. At this stage, the complaint is not liable to be quashed and the petitioner can take all the pleas at the time of trial in the defence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. It is not disputed that an FIR No.371 under Sections 332 and 353 IPC was registered against Rajpal for committing an offence for causing interruption and discharge of official duty by the Electricity Department. An FIR No.385 dated 10.8.2002 under Section 379 IPC and Section 39 read with Section 50 of Indian Electricity Act was registered against Rajpal at Police Station Sadar, Ballabgarh as per the inquiry report dated 02.8.2002. In the above background it is not unbelievable that Rajpal Yadav was carrying some grudge against the petitioner, who had caught him committing theft of electricity. When complainant Hukam Singh had suffered injuries, a detailed inquiry was conducted by the SHO Police Station Ballabgarh and a cancellation report was submitted before the trial Court on 14.8.2002. Subsequently, after a gap of 4 years on 14.8.2006 a protest petition was filed by Hukam Singh and the said petition was treated as a private complaint on 05.8.2009 and thereafter vide order dated 5.8.2009 the petitioner was summoned to face trial. There is an undue delay of 4 years on the part of Hukam Singh to file the protest petition. As per the detailed inquiry (Annexure P-10) Hukam Singh had received minor injuries, SDO Mann and JE Kulbir Singh had picked him up and dropped him at his home. Thereafter, Rajpal had brought Hukam Singh from his house and got a complaint registered against S.S.Mann. As per the report Kulbir Singh had given an affidavit that he was driving the official vehicle as the driver Jitenderpal was on leave. The statement made by Hukam Singh (Annexure P-9) that official vehicle Criminal Misc. No. M- 21499 of 2010 -5- was being driven by SDO S.S. Mann does not inspire confidence. Presence of Rajpal was not there on the spot. He has not chosen to appear as a witness before the Judicial Magistrate Faridabad when Hukam Singh had specifically named him that he had taken him to the hospital. The complaint dated 14.8.2006 under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, (case No.182/1 of 23.4.2008) and the summoning order dated 05.8.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Faridabad are quashed. Criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed in the above terms. 26.5.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE