CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 30726 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 14, 2011 Pala Khan and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Janak Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. P. K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint dated 15.9.2007 (Annexure P-3), summoning order dated 7.7.2010 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 4.8.2011 passed in the revision petition against the order dated 7.7.2010. On the basis of some quarrel between petitioner No.2 and the respondent, enquiry was conducted by DSP, Fatehgarh Sahib, on the basis of which FIR dated 3.9.2007 under Sections 394, 323, 341, 448, 506, 34 IPC was registered against respondent Nos.1 and others. The challan was CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 30726 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: presented. The accused in this FIR admitted their guilt and were released on probation. It is alleged that in order to take revenge, the respondents filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that on 13.8.2007, the petitioners came in Panchayat and committed the act as alleged. On the basis of this complaint, the petitioners have been summoned under Sections 323 IPC and under Section 3 of the SC & ST Act. The plea of the petitioners, therefore, is that they have been involved in this false complaint in view of the complaint filed by the respondents. The petitioners have also made reference to some evidence and the affidavit of Ex.Sarpanch to say that the occurrence took place on 13.9.2007 and so the report is false and concocted. The petitioner, therefore, pleads that it being a counter blast to the earlier litigation, the proceedings and the charge as framed should be quashed. The petitioner had earlier also filed a Criminal Misc. Petition No.31909 M of 2010 for quashing of the complaint and the summoning order, but the same was got dismissed as withdrawn to approach the Sessions Judge by way of revision. The revision has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 4.8.2011, which is also impugned now in the present petition. Not only that, thereafter the charges have been framed against the petitioners on 4.8.2011. The petitioners accordingly pray for quashing of all these orders. CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 30726 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: While dealing with the revision filed by the petitioners, the Court has clearly observed that the enquiry report referred to by the petitioners pertain to the occurrence dated 31.8.2007. This occurrence is found mentioned in the complaint, for which the pressure was allegedly put on the complainant to compromise the matter on 13.9.2007. For this purpose, the complainant had been called in the Panchayat and was asked to apology for the occurrence dated 31.8.2007. It is on 13.9.2007 that the complainant had allegedly abused by the name of his caste. The revisional Court, therefore, has rightly observed that this was a separate incident, which has been referred to by the complainant as previous occurrence. The revision was accordingly dismissed and rightly so. Otherwise also, the petitioners pleads for interference in this case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by pleading that the complaint is concocted and false. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be wide enough but has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified. The High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, the accusation would not be sustained. That would be the function of trial Judge. Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not an instrument handed over to the accused CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 30726 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 4 }: to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. It is also observed that it would not be proper for the High Court to analyze the case of complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at the conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. In this regard, reference can be made to State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others, 2004(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 233. No case for interference, thus, is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. October 14 ,2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE