IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O. 143 of 2008. Decided on November 22, 2010. Baldev Chand …Petitioner. Versus Dinesh Chander Sharma ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner Sh. T.S.Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent Respondent in person. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) By means of the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner, who is one of the three accused in a private complaint, instituted by respondent Dinesh Chander, has approached this Court for quashing the complaint and also the summoning order, dated 28.7.2008, Annexure P-3, passed in the said complaint. 2. Respondent, who is a practising Advocate in the Courts at Una, filed a complaint under Sections 355 and 350 IPC, against the present Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - petitioner and three more persons, namely Shri K.K.Pant, the then Deputy Commissioner, Jaswant Singh, Personal Security Officer of Deputy Commissioner and Shri Joginder Singh, Peon of Deputy Commissioner, making the following allegations. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Una had conducted certain inquiries, in a few matters, pertaining to the respondent. Respondent wanted certified copies of papers, pertaining to those inquiries, for which he moved an application on 26.4.2000. When he got no response, he wanted to meet the Deputy Commissioner on 28.4.2000, but on that day, the Deputy Commissioner being busy, he went to Deputy Commissioner’s office on 29.4.2000 and sent a chit to the Deputy Commissioner, through his Peon Joginder Singh. 3. Around 1 P.M., when some persons were seen coming out of Deputy Commissioner’s office, respondent inquired of Joginder Singh, Peon about his meeting the Deputy Commissioner, upon which the said peon told that a meeting of revenue officers was going to take place and that he (respondent) could see the Deputy Commissioner, after the meeting was over. Upon that, respondent went to the office of the Deputy Commissioner. Deputy Commissioner got furious and - 3 - asked the respondent, with whose permission he entered his office, when a meeting was going on. Respondent told him that he had earlier sent a chit. The two started exchanging hot words, upon which Additional District Magistrate intervened and asked the respondent to see him in his office, about his application, around 2 P.M. 4. Respondent went to the office of ADM at 2 P.M., but he was not there. He waited for the ADM upto 3.15 P.M. and when there was no information about him, he again went to the office of the Deputy Commissioner and asked his Peon to let him enter Deputy Commissioner’s room. At that time, PSO of Deputy Commissioner, also impleaded as an accused, was sitting beside the Peon. Peon objected to the respondent entering the Deputy Commissioner’s office. PSO of Deputy Commissioner then went to the office of Deputy Commissioner, came back within a few minutes and told the respondent that he had been called by the Deputy Commissioner. Respondent then went inside the Deputy Commissioner’s office. Deputy Commissioner asked him as to why he had been nagging his peon, time and again. When the respondent denied and told that he was only asking him to convey to the Deputy Commissioner that he was - 4 - waiting to see him, he (Deputy Commissioner) got enraged. He then asked his peon to leave the room. PSO, however, remained inside the room. Deputy Commissioner then got up from his chair, caught hold of respondent by his arm and raised his hand to slap him, but when the respondent cautioned him that he shall have to suffer the consequences of his intended assault, he withdrew. However, PSO of the Deputy Commissioner slapped the respondent on his head. In the meanwhile, present petitioner also entered the room and he also did the same thing (what did he do, is not specified in the complaint, but the respondent, who is present in person, says that he caught hold of him by his arms and did nothing more than that). Respondent was later on pushed out of the Deputy Commissioner’s room, by the PSO and the present petitioner. 5. This incident took place on 29.4.2000. The same day, an FIR was lodged against the respondent, by the Peon of the Deputy Commissioner, namely Joginder Singh, under Sections 332,353, 506 IPC. Present complaint was filed on 6.5.2000. Respondent narrated the alleged incident to his colleagues and asked them for taking appropriate action, against the Deputy Commissioner and his - 5 - officials, guilty of misbehavior and assault. He examined himself and some of his colleagues, in support of his complaint. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after close of evidence, passed a detailed order, dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. A revision, against that order, was carried to the learned Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge remanded the case, with a direction to allow the respondent an opportunity to lead further evidence, in support of his complaint. Respondent withdrew the complaint against the Peon of the Deputy Commissioner, namely Joginder Singh and examined him as a witness (CW-10), after the remand of the case by the Sessions Court. Matter was dealt with by the Additional CJM after remand, and all the persons, named as accused, except Joginder Singh, against whom complaint had been withdrawn, were ordered to be summoned by the impugned order. 6. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, as also the respondent and scanned the record of the case. 7. Incident is alleged to have taken place on 29.4.2000. Complaint was filed on 6.5.2000. Respondent complainant is an Advocate and from the submissions, he made in the Court, it can be said that - 6 - he is well versed in criminal law and jurisprudence and, therefore, it can legitimately be presumed that he must be knowing the importance of prompt reporting of a crime to the authorities, which are authorized to take cognizance of such crime. In the present case, there is delay of six days. Respondent, on the very day of incident, claims to have submitted one representation to Shri Keshav Chandel, Cashier of Bar Association, who has been examined as CW-3. There is one application, dated 29.4.2000, which has been marked as ‘B’, but CW-3 Keshav Chandel, did not say that this was the representation, submitted by the respondent. Respondent himself also did not say that it was this representation, which he had submitted to CW-3 Keshav Chandel. Therefore, it cannot be said, if Mark ‘B’ is a genuine document, or it was prepared on the very day of the incident. 8. Respondent submits that CW-10 Joginder Singh, Peon of the Deputy Commissioner, has admitted, in his statement, that respondent had been pushed out of Deputy Commissioner’s room and that this fact corroborates his version. It is true that Joginder Singh did say that the respondent had been pushed out, but that would not mean that he was assaulted by the persons, named in the complaint, or - 7 - was attempted to be assaulted. In any case, Joginder Singh was one of the accused, named in the complaint. Not only this, specific role had been attributed to him. Complaint was then withdrawn against him and he was examined as a witness. Despite that, he did not corroborate the respondent’s version of alleged assault and attempted assault. 9. Complaint, having been filed six days after the lodging of FIR against the respondent, under Sections 332, 353 and 506 IPC by Joginder Singh, Peon of Deputy Commissioner, and that too when the complainant is a practising Advocate, there cannot be any escape from the observation, that the complaint is a counter blast to the FIR. 10. It is true that respondent has been acquitted in the case, registered against him, at the instance of Joginder Singh, but that does not guarantee that what he had narrated in his complaint, six days after the alleged occurrence, is true version of the incident. 11. Respondent wants this Court to go through a complaint, which he lodged against the investigating officer of the case, registered against him, which is Ex.CW-9/A and the statements of some witnesses, examined by the prosecution, during the - 8 - trial of the case, registered against him. Those documents, in no way, serve as evidence, with regard to the allegations of the respondent, made in the present case. 12. For the foregoing reasons, petition is allowed and the impugned order, as against the present petitioner, as also the other persons, named as accused, is quashed and complaint filed by the respondent is dismissed. November 22, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.