Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-5426 of 2008 Decided on : 21-07-2009 Sukhminder Singh and another ....Petitioners VERSUS Harcharan Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. P.P.S.Duggal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mandeep K Saajan, Advocate for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of a complaint (Annexure P-4) and the consequent summoning order dated 11.8.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Trial Court. Complainant-respondent no.2 Atma Singh preferred a complaint against the petitioners and number of other persons under the provisions of Section 500, 506 IPC. The essence of the allegations against the petitioners and other persons has been brought in para nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the complaint which are extracted hereunder:- “4 That accused no.1 namely Baljeet Singh has given an application to the SSP, Faridkot against the complainants and Baltej Singh s/o Bachan Singh, Baldev Singh s/o Bachan Singh, Harcharan Singh s/o Bagh Singh, Jagdev Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008 2 Singh s/o Ahala Singh, Balraj Singh s/o Hakam Singh, the complaint was totally false and was full of mis statement. There was no truth in it. This application was marked to SP(H), Faridkot, because of this application the police went to the houses of the complainants number of times, because of coming of the police number of time at the residence, the reputation of the complainants were hitted in the village and among the relations, and the self respect was also shaked. The police treated the complainants as accused, the police at the application of the applicant has harassed the complainants and others, many times the police forcibly has taken the complainants to the police station as an accused from the village, because of the various visits, at the office SP(H), Faridkot, the people started looking us as accused, the complainants also appeared as per call, before the office of the SP(H) and they have to wait outside of the office of this officer, the person of the area and other known of this officer, the person of the area and other known persons started looking to the complainants as accused. 5. That accused no.1 namely Baljeet Singh in conspiracy with other accused persons and after the planning, to implicate the complainants made out to totally false version, relating to 1.12.2006 made out a false story and gave this false application to the office of SSP, Faridkot on 15.1.2007. The above stated accused persons with conspiracy with each other, some Shamlat land of panchayat, the suspended Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008 3 Sarpanch Gurcharan Singh alongwith other accused has illegally occupied it, because of this allegation possession Gurcharan Singh and his other members have been suspended, they don't want to leave this illegal possession, the Govt. has to construct water works upon this Shamlat land the Govt. has issued the order for the vocation of the illegal possession, regarding this the demarcation dated 1.12.2006, accused no. 7 and 8, in conspiracy with other accused was conducted in the home and no information was given to any other person. The complainants wants to vacate this illegal possession of the panchayat land, on the applications of the complainants, the demarcation on 6.6.2005 was done because of this grudge, accused no.1 namely Baljeet Singh conniving with other accused from no.2 to no.10 gave a false application to the SSP, Faridkot dated 15.1.2007. 6. That accused no.1 to 10 in conspiracy to take the revenge from the complainants gave a false application against the complainants and Baltej Singh s/o Bachan Singh, Baldev Singh s/o Bachan Singh, Jagdev Singh s/o Ahala Singh, Balraj Singh s/o Hakam Singh, this application for inquiry was marked to SP(H) Faridkot. This application was inquired into, the SP(H) Faridkot has called both of the parties in his office, where accused no.1 to 10 has given the false wrong statement allegating the complainants. Because of conspiracy of the accused person and because of this false Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008 4 application, the police came to call the complainants in the village and in the house, in the village a gathering was organized because of the false application we are worked all in the gathering, because of this the complainants has to bear insult, and the reputation was also hitted. The above stated accused person in a conspiracy by stating wrongly has given the false application. After inquiry the application was found false and it was consigned.” Apart from the above allegations there is no other allegation against the petitioners. Learned Trial Court before whom the complaint was presented after recording of the preliminary evidence summoned the petitioners and other persons to stand trial. In the instant petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that complaint is an abuse of the process of law. He has stated that:- (i) that a perusal of the complaint does not disclose of commission of any offence (ii) even if the allegations are taken to be correct, they does not constitute commission of any offence by the petitioners and other persons (iii) that complaint is a counter blast to the complaint initiated by accused Baljit Singh who had filed a complaint against Atma Singh the present complainant under the provisions of Section 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Atrocities to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act. (iv) that the petitioners were arrayed as accused by the complainant Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008 5 because they were mentioned as witnesses in the complaint preferred by Baljit Singh. (v) that the complainant has effected the compromise with Baljit Singh and withdrawn the complaint which is reflected from Annexure R-4 and as a result thereof, there are no proceedings against Baljit Singh whereas petitioners continue to face the trial. Learned counsel prays that in view of the aforesaid, the present petition deserves to be accepted and the complaint and the consequent summoning order dated 11.8.2007 deserve to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that there are specific averments in the complaint against the petitioners which reveal the commission of a specific offence for which they have been rightly summoned. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Kulbir Singh Uberoi versus M/s Kumar Industries (P&H) 2007 (3) RCR (Crl) 147 to contend that once cognizance has been taken by the Trial Court in the complaint then the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C which is to be used sparingly should not be ordinarily exercised and let the Trial Court decide the matter. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is no doubt that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be exercised sparingly but if the Court is confronted with a situation where abuse of the power is implicit from the facts of the case then in such an eventuality power under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised in order to thwart such an abuse at the hands of the complainant. The provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C are extracted hereunder:- Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008 6 Section 482:- Saving of inherent powers of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” In case State of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604(1) following tests were laid down for considering the quashing of a complaint:- 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 Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008 7 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 or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding 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. 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.” A perusal of the extract of the complaint which has been reproduced above even if taken to be correct on the face of it does not reveal commission of any offence. The allegations are simply vague and sweeping in nature. There is no averment in the complaint as to how the petitioners were instrumental in filing of the complaint by one Baljit Singh. The abuse is further evident from the fact that Baljit Singh is the person who actually initiated the complaint under provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Atrocities to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008 8 against the complainant Atma Singh. Petitioners were merely cited as witnesses in the said complaint and obviously the complaint was the outcome of said Baljit Singh having mentioned the names of the petitioners as witnesses. Perusal of Annexure R-4 reveals that the complainant has settled the matter with Baljit Singh and has chosen to withdraw the complaint against him while persisting with the proceedings against the petitioners. In any eventuality if these circumstances are to be ignored the facts still remains that the complainant was required to delineate the role of each and every person so as to make out clearly that the offence stood committed by them or prima facie established their complicity. But if the complaint is silent on the role of the petitioners or the role of the individuals who are so alleged to have committed the offence then even if the complaint is permitted to go on it is unlikely to result in any conviction of person. So far as looking on from this angle, complaint (Annexure P-4) and the consequent summoning order dated 11.8.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Trial Court deserve to be quashed as persisting with the proceedings is unlikely to lead to any conviction of any person. Having regard to the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed and complaint (Annexure P-4) and the consequent summoning order dated 11.8.2007 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Trial Court are hereby quashed. July 21, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge