IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-2461 of 2009 Date of decision: January 28, 2009 Kashmir Singh and Others ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present: Mr. L.S. Goraya, Advocate for the petitioners. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the complaint dated 20.4.2007 (Annexure P1) titled Lakhwinder Singh v. Baljit Singh etc. filed by respondent No.2 alleging commission of offences under Sections 307, 447, 427, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur. It is submitted that the present complaint is nothing but a counter-blast to the FIR No.29 dated 12.3.2007 lodged by Kashmir Singh (petitioner No.1) in respect of the offences under Sections 427 and 447 IPC. In the said case, charge has been framed against the accused therein including Lakhwinder Singh (respondent No.2) vide charge-sheet dated 10.12.2007 (Annexure P2). As a counter-blast to the said FIR No.29 dated 12.3.2007, the complainant Lakhwinder Singh (respondent No.2) earlier lodged FIR No.39 dated 1.4.2007 at Police Station Dhariwal. The said FIR, it is stated, was found false by the Investigating Officer. In fact there is a long standing civil and criminal litigation between the parties and on that account FIR No.39 dated 1.4.2007 was lodged against the petitioners by respondent No.2. It is Crl. Misc. No. M-2461 of 2009 [2] also submitted that the proceedings under Section 145 CrPC were also initiated on an application submitted by the petitioner. A reference is made to the order dated 10.4.2007 (Annexure P3) whereby the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gurdaspur by invoking the provisions of Section 146 CrPC appointed Naib Tehsildar as Receiver of the land. It is submitted that the complainant Lakhwinder Singh (respondent No.2) in case FIR No.39 dated 1.4.2007 had named only four persons as accused, but in the impugned complaint (Annexure P1), he has mentioned the names of 10-11 persons. This according to the learned counsel clearly shows that the filing of the complaint (Annexure P1) is only to harass the petitioners. It is also submitted that the gun of one of the petitioners was also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh to ascertain whether any shots had been fired. A reference is made to the FSL report dated 28.5.2007 (Annexure P4), according to which the gun that was sent was not used in the occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strongly contended that the complaint (Annexure P1) filed by respondent No.2 is nothing but clearly an abuse of the process of the law and the said complaint is liable to be quashed. It is submitted that even though admittedly no summoning order has been passed, the complaint (Annexure P1) being clearly misconceived is liable to be quashed. Strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the case titled State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I find no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly, no summoning order has been issued by the learned Magistrate which would warrant intereference of this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. A reference to the case, State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others (Supra) shows that it does not provide for interference in a case at a pre- summoning stage. It has inter alia been laid down therein that in respect of the Crl. Misc. No. M-2461 of 2009 [3] categories of cases as mentioned therein, the High Court may in exercise of its powers under Article 226 or under Section 482 CrPC interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, power is to be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The question whether a complaint can be quashed at a pre- summoning stage was not determined. In fact in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose @ Chabi Bose and another, AIR 1963 SC 1430 it was held that the entire scheme of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that an accused person does not come into the picture at all till a process is issued. He is only entitled to remain present to watch the proceedings and he cannot interfere in the process. Therefore, when an accused person does not come into picture at the pre-summoning stage, it would be improper for this Court to interfere in the proceedings before the trial Magistrate which are at a pre-summoning stage. Even the reference to the FSL report (Annexure P4) in which the gun of one of the petitioners is not shown to have been fired, cannot be gone into at this stage as it is not shown that the said report relates to the gun which is owned by the petitioner. Besides, there is no material before this Court at this stage to ascertain or go into the said question. Even otherwise this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not to embark upon an inquiry as regards the veracity of facts and evidence that may be there as that is the function of the trial Court. Therefore, the entire petition is mis-conceived and is not maintainable. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE January 28, 2009 amit