Crl.M.No. M-33736 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No. M-33736 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.11.2011 ... Tirath Singh and others ................Petitioners vs. State of Punjab and another .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for the petitioners ... K.C. Puri, J. Challenge in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is the order dated 14.7.2004 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala (Annexure P-4), vide which the Court has taken cognizance and has treated the protest petition as private complaint No. 85/1 dated 14.7.2004 under Sections 452, 326, 323, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Samrala titled as Surinder Singh vs. Tirath Singh and others pending in the Court of Sh. R.K. Beri, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala, and petitioners have also challenged the summoning order dated 3.2.2010 passed Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala (Annexure P-6). Briefly stated, FIR No.103 dated 19.9.1999 under Sections Crl.M.No. M-33736 of 2011 -2- 452, 326, 323, 148, 149 IPC was registered in Police Station Samrala on the statement of Surinder Singh s/o Sadhu Singh, who has stated that he is resident of village Sihala and is doing the work of milk vendor. On 18.9.1999, He and his nephew Jatinder Singh s/o Chuhar Singh were present in their house and were talking about to pay obeisance at Gugga Marri. It was about 11 P.M. then one Tirath Singh, Sarpanch village Sihala armed with Dattar, Narinder Singh s/o Charan Dass armed with Kirch and his brother Bikramjit Singh @ Pamma armed with Gandasi, Kishan Dev s/o Puran Chand armed with Gandasi came into their living room. Kishan Dev raised lalkara that caught hold of them, then Narinder Singh gave kirch blow to the complainant and complainant raised his right arm to save the blow which struck on his hand below the elbow. Then Bikramjit Singh @ Pamma gave reverse side of Gandasi which struck on the head of the complainant i.e. Jatinder Singh. They raised noise, which attracted Darshan Singh brother of the complainant. On seeing them, all of them ran away with their respective weapon. Grouse for this was Panchayat elections. It is further mentioned that complainant and his nephew Jatinder Singh were admitted by Chuhar Singh in Civil Hospital, Samrala, from where the complainant was referred to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana and thereafter, the complainant was moved to DMC, Ludhiana. The police after investigation submitted the cancellation report on 27.3.2000. The complainant filed protest petition on 21.3.2001. Complainant Surinder Singh also filed complaint under Sections 452, 326, 323, 148, 149 IPC reiterating the facts mentioned Crl.M.No. M-33736 of 2011 -3- in the FIR and vide order dated 3.2.2010, accused have been summoned to stand trial under Sections 452, 326, 323, 148, 149 IPC (Annexure P-6). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that vide Annexure P-4, cancellation report has been accepted. Learned trial Court vide same order has ordered the recording of preliminary evidence of the complainant in the complaint case. The subsequent order passed by the trial Court cannot sustain in view of authority reported as Surendra Singh vs. State of Bihar 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 199. It is contented that the police has made a thorough enquiry and cancellation report Annexure P-3 has been submitted. Once this cancellation report has been accepted, the trial Court could not have taken cognizance in summoning the accused through order Annexure P-6. I have carefully considered the said submission made by counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the ruling referred by the counsel for the petitioners. Cancellation report cannot be taken as a gospel truth. The reasoning given by the Investigating Officer is that in fact fight of Surinder Singh’s party has taken place with Avtar Singh s/o Milkhi Ram and petitioners have been falsely implicated. In the FIR specific role of each of the applicant has been mentioned. Since, the complainant and other eye-witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and as such the case cannot be thrown away at the threshold. So, far as the authority in Surendra Singh’s case (Supra) is concerned, that authority does not help the petitioners in any Crl.M.No. M-33736 of 2011 -4- manner. In paragraph No.9 of the above said authority the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “This, however, does not preclude or take away the right of the aggrieved person from pursuing any remedy available in law. For the reasons stated above, the appeal succeeds and the same is allowed accordingly.” In the present case, although cancellation report has been accepted vide order dated 14.7.2004 (Annexure P-4) passed by SDJM, but the complainant has been called upon to lead the preliminary evidence. After taking stock of evidence, the accused have been summoned vide order dated 3.2.2010. The grievous injuries were on the body of the complainant. The veracity of the cancellation report can be adjudged during the course of trial. The provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to scuttle the criminal case at the threshold only if the petitioners are able to prove that the criminal proceedings are clearly an abuse of the process of the Court. Petitioners have failed to make out their case for quashing the criminal proceedings referred to above at the initial stage. Consequently, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 8.11.2011 Judge chugh