Crl. Misc. No. M- 720 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 720 of 2009 Date of decision: March 2, 2009 Anifa Begam and others ….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, 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 seeking quashing of the Crl. Complaint No.1 of 23.1.2004 (Annexure P5) as well as the summoning order dated 13.9.2008 (Annexure P6) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phul, Distt. Bhatinda. The complainant Nasib Kaur (respondent No.2) filed the complaint (Annexure P5) on the allegations that on 20.1.2004 at about 6.30 p.m., she was present at her house along with her family members. The accused namely Gurjant Singh, Ajaib Singh, Malkit Singh, Jaswant Singh, Nirmal Singh, Harbans Singh, Veena Sagar (petitioner No.2), Rup Singh (petitioner No.4) and SHO Ranjit Singh having dangs and SHO with gunman and driver also having dangs and along with them were Sarpanch Anifa Begum (petitioner No.1) and Amarjit Kaur Panch (petitioner No.3) all were on gypsy vehicle entered the house of the complainant Crl. Misc. No. M- 720 of 2009 2 with an intention to harm her and her family members. On reaching there, they raised lalkaras. Anifa Begam, Sarpanch (petitioner No.1) and Amarjit Kaur Panch (petitioner No.3) along with SHO were saying that ‘Bazigaro’ they would destroy their house and they should pick up their household articles and possession of the land would be kept by Gurjant Singh etc. The complainant along with her son Surjit Singh showed to the accused the papers of the Court case pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Phul between Mohinder Singh and Gurjant Singh and also regarding the stay of the house. Besides, the complainant told the accused that in view of the fact that her husband Mohinder Singh had filed a civil suit in the Court, they should not be made homeless. However, the accused did not listen to the complainant and the SHO took the Court papers from the complainant and tore the same. He also started abusing the complainant and insisted that the possession be given to Gurjant Singh etc. The SHO attacked with his danda upon the complainant. The other accused grappled with Surjit Singh son of the complainant and attacked him with their ‘dangs’ and ‘soties’. The other accused also assaulted Surjit Singh. The accused persons, it is alleged, were attacking Surjit Singh son of the complainant and the complainant came forward to stop them. The accused Gurjant Singh and Malkit Singh grappled with the complainant and tore off her clothes and they insulted her. She (complainant) raised raula of ‘naa maaro naa maaro’ on hearing which her husband Mohinder Singh and son Deepa Singh who were sitting inside came out and from the village Pargat Singh son of Jaggar Singh also came at the spot. They all raised raula of ‘naa maaro naa maaro’ on which accused No.1 to 10 started picking the household articles from the house of the complainant and threw them in the street. Due to noise, people came from the neighbourhood and then the accused along with their respective weapons ran away from the spot after extending threats to the complainant and her family members. Next day in the morning, the complainant along with her son Crl. Misc. No. M- 720 of 2009 3 Surjit Singh appeared in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phul and made a request for her medical examination being conducted because of the injuries she had suffered. The Court allowed the complainant and her son to be medically examined at their own cost. The complainant and her son were medically examined at Civil Hospital, Rampura Phul. The certified copies of which were given on 22.1.2004. The complainant made representations to the higher authorities to take action against the accused persons. However, it is alleged that the accused have political as well as police influence, so no action was taken against them. It is alleged that the accused inflicted injuries to the complainant and her son, besides, tried to dispossess them from their house. They had thrown the household articles and had uttered foul language. The reason for this was that accused No.1 to 6 i.e. Gurjant Singh etc. in connivance with Sarpanch Anifa Begam (petitioner No.1) her husband Veena Sagar (petitioner No.2) and Amarjit Kaur, Panch (petitioner No.3) were in league to get her house vacated and get possession of the same. Due to this, the husband of the complainant namely Mohinder Singh had filed a Court case titled Mohinder Singh v. Gurjant Singh etc. on 16.1.2004 which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Phul. The accused persons had therefore attacked them. They had good relations in the political and police circles. The act of the accused it is alleged falls under Sections 323, 447, 452, 166, 148, 149, 506, 354, 504 and 511 Indian Penal Code; besides, Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 13.9.2008 (Annexure P6) has summoned the accused including the petitioners. It was observed that in support of the allegations in the complaint, the complainant Nasib Kaur stepped in the witness box as CW1 and she also examined Surjit Singh CW2, Dr. Gurmit Kaur CW-3, Deepa Singh CW4 and Mohinder Singh CW-5. They supported the Crl. Misc. No. M- 720 of 2009 4 version of the complainant. Dr. Gurmit Kaur (CW-3) found three injuries on the person of the complainant. Besides, eleven injuries were found on the person of Surjit Singh. After going through the statements of witnesses and documents placed on record, the learned Magistrate was of the view that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against all the accused for the offences under Sections 323, 452, 148, 149, 506 and 354 IPC. Accordingly, the accused including the petitioners were ordered to be summoned. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that petitioners No.1 and 3 being Sarpanch and Panch of the village are being falsely implicated in the case along with their husbands who are petitioners No.2 and 4 respectively. It is submitted that in fact Mohinder Singh husband of the complainant had encroached on the land of the Mandir and in this regard a complaint (Annexure P3) was made to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO), Rampura. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO) asked petitioner No.1 vide letter dated 8.1.2004 (Annexure P1) to get the matter resolved after completing the ‘Nishandehi’ (demarcation). It is submitted that the husband of the complainant in the presence of respectable persons gave an undertaking to vacate the land of the Mandir. A report was sent by petitioner No.1 to the SDM, Phul to the effect that the person occupying the land had given an undertaking to vacate the land. However, later they did not want to vacate the land and as such, permission to get the nishandehi (demarcation) be granted. The complainant it is alleged was annoyed with the said report and the SDM Phul and Kanungo Halqa had submitted their report after nishandehi (demarcation). The complainant, therefore, falsely concocted the story just to implicate the petitioners in a false case and to put pressure on them so as not to let the demarcation of the land be carried out. It is submitted that the complainant has mentioned that the alleged incident that had occurred on 20.1.2004 whereas on 23.1.2004, the compromise (Annexure P4) was Crl. Misc. No. M- 720 of 2009 5 effected in which the husband of petitioner No.1 and others were nominated by the husband of the complainant as members of the committee for settling the dispute between the members of Mata Rani Committee and Mohinder Singh – the husband of the respondent. In terms of the compromise (Annexure P4) the husband of the petitioner had undertaken to withdraw the civil litigation and to pay an amount regarding the land in his occupation i.e. Rs.15,000/-. It is submitted that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and they have been implicated just to put pressure on them. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the documents Annexures P1 to P4 are liable to be proved in accordance with the procedure mandated by law. The same are not per se admissible so as to be read in evidence in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. Therefore, by taking the said documents into account at this stage a finding or conclusion is not liable to be reached at as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations as made in the complaint. Even otherwise the matter relating to the appreciation of evidence is the domain of the trial Court and this Court is not to perform the functions of the trial Court. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the complainant has died. However, it may be noticed that the Magistrate has already taken cognizance of the case and the petitioners have been summoned. There is no infirmity in the order that has been passed by the learned Magistrate in summoning the petitioners. The defences which are available to the petitioners may be availed of by them in accordance with law. In case the complainant has died, the petitioners may avail whatever remedy that is available to them. However, insofar as the quashing of the order dated 13.9.2008 (Annexure P6), for which primarily the petition has been filed it may be noticed that there is no infirmity in the same. Crl. Misc. No. M- 720 of 2009 6 Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances the present petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 2, 2009 amit