IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. M M O No.72 of 2006. Reserved on 15.9.2008. Date of Decision: 14 .10.2008. _______________________________________________________ Rajpinder and others. ….Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and another. … Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?. No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent No.1: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. SURINDR SINGH, J. Respondent Malkiat Singh lodged F.I.R. No. 40 of 2005 on 16-5-2005 under Sections 341, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Dehra. After the investigation of the case, the Police submitted the cancellation report to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate but he did not agree with it. He found a prima facie case against the accused-petitioners under Sections 324, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, Station House Officer, Police Station Dehra was directed to prepare and present the challan in the case and the accused-petitioners were ordered to be present before the Court on 11.7.2006. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the impugned order, instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set-aside the impugned order of their summoning, as from the facts and material - 2 - collected, no case is made out against them and further, that the record of the investigation shows that in case F.I.R. No. 73 of 2005 registered at Police Station, Hoshiapur, (Pb.), the complainant revealed having filed a false against the petitioners. The witnesses cited are got up witnesses having a criminal history. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. In brief, the facts relevant for deciding the instant petition are that the respondent No.2 Malkiat Singh resident of Mehte in Haryana had lodged FIR No. 40 of 2005 in Police Station, Dehra under the Sections aforesaid, alleging that at about 11.30 A.M, he had gone to Temple Jawalamukhi on his scooter bearing No. PB- 07-9827 to pay obeisance in the Temple. While returning during the night, when he reached at a place known as Dhaliara around 11.00 P.M, he stopped the scooter and went on the side of the road to urinate. In the mean time, a car came from Dhaliara side and stopped it, in front of his scooter. Accused persons, Surinder Kalsi and Rajpinder Singh alightened from the car and pushed his scooter. Thereafter, accused Dilawar Singh came out from the car with a knife in his hand along with Raj Rani. He gave knife blows on his back, hands and on his stomach. All the accused started beating him and Raj Rani proclaimed that if he would not rehabilitate his wife, who is the sister of Raj Rani, he would be done to death. Thereafter, the complainant raised hue and cry, a Maruti Car which was passing through that side stopped. Petitioners boarded their car and fled away towards Chintpurni. The passengers of Maruti Car which stopped there, took him to Police Station, Dehra for lodging the report. Thereafter, he was got medically examined. Police visited the spot and found a token tax - 3 - receipt pertaining to the vehicle No. PB-54-2936 which had crossed the Gagret Barrier at 6.20 P.M. It was taken into possession by the Police. He did not disclose how it came in his possession. The complainant had also produced a knife which was taken into possession by the Police. Statements of witnesses Chander Dev, Chander Mohan and Babloo were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the investigation, Chander Dev and Chander Mohan witnesses who were in Maruti Car, which had stopped there, stated that they did not know the accused at all nor any beating was given in their presence. Later, both of them are alleged to have sent affidavit through registered post in the name of Superintendent of Police, Kangra wherein they alleged to have stated that they knew Rajpinder and others very well and also gave the number of their vehicle in which they had traveled, whereas, in the earliest statements recorded by the Police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they did not say anything rather denied about the alleged incident of beating. The token tax barrier chit which was allegedly found on the spot on 16.5.2005 by the Police was found to have been tampered with. Rather, during the investigation, it came to light that the said vehicle on the same day had crossed the Pandoh Barrier at 10.10 a.m. and was going towards Lal Sinha District Una, whereas the incident in question is alleged to have taken place at 11.30 during the night near Dehra. The Police also took into possession the details of the mobile of petitioner Rajpinder. According to it, at 8.30 p.m on that day, Rajpinder petitioner was found present at Hoshiarpur. The accused petitioner Dilawar is an employee in State Bank of Patiala at - 4 - Garhshankar and on that day, he had been found to be working till 8.00 P.M. in the Bank as per the statement of the Deputy Manager of the Bank which was also recorded by the Police. Accused persons Raj Rani and Rajpinder petitioners were found present till 6.30 P.M. at Una performing some rituals. The conclusion of the investigation was that the complainant had lodged false F.I.R. Further, the Police, during the investigation, also found that a case vide FIR No. 73 of 2005 was registered against the complainant on 10.50 pm. Under Section 406 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code at Hoshiarpur in which the complainant was arrested and during his interrogation on 24.5.2005 vide Zimni number 7, he admitted having lodged a false FIR against the petitioners in retaliation to the case registered against him by his wife who is the sister of deceased Raj Rani petitioner. Against Chander Dev alleged witness a case was found to have been registered under Section 302/452/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Haryana. In the medico legal certificate, the injuries found on the person of the complainant were simple and superficial in nature. On consideration of the cancellation report and the documents appended thereto, learned trial Court opined that the injuries could not be self inflicted on the person of the complainant, hence they were summoned for the offences aforesaid. As a matter of fact, the real sister of Raj Rani petitioner is the wife of the complainant. There is some matrimonial dispute going on between them. The instant case appears to have been lodged against the petitioners to retaliate them. The evidence collected by the Police during investigation does not establish the truthfulness of the case of the complainant. The receipt alleged to - 5 - have been found on the spot is tampered with and the injuries on the person of the complainant are superficial in nature as indicated in the M.L.C. by the Doctor. Even the Doctor has not opined that these injuries could be caused by sharp edged weapon. The entire complexion of the case which was projected by the complainant is far from truth. The investigation record, the conduct of the complainant as well as the statements of his witnesses do not make it a case worth taking the cognizance. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.6.2006 summoning the petitioners as also the FIR in question is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the petition is allowed. (Surinder Singh) Judge. October 14th , 2008. (bm)