CRM No.M-28866 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-8.10.2010 Bal Mukand s/o Devi Chand ...Petitioner Versus Raj Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the respondent. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The matrix of the facts, which need a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that on 4.1.2006 at about 4.30 P.M., petitioner Bal Mukand son of Devi Chand, was going to his house on his Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-29/N-7357. As soon as, he reached the crossing of Neemka Mor at Ballabgarh, in the meantime, he noticed one motorcycle and one scooter carrying three persons each, making lot of noise, came from the side of Ballabgarh. Seeing the said vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner, the petitioner stopped his motorcycle on the kacha portion towards extreme left side of the road. The scooter bearing registration No.HR-29/J-4249 (for short “the offending scooter), which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, came on wrong side. Its driver could not control and it struck against the legs of the petitioner, due to which, he suffered serious injuries and a fracture on his right femur of right leg. He was immediately removed in an injured condition, was admitted in Escorts Hospital, Faridabad and was medico legally examined, vide MLR (Annexure P1). On the next day, the statement of the petitioner was recorded in the hospital, on the basis of which, a criminal case, vide FIR (Annexure P2) was registered against the driver of the offending scooter in this context. CRM No.M-28866 of 2008 2 2. The petitioner claimed that during the investigation, it revealed that the offending scooter was being driven by Satpal son of Chander Pal, while Raj Kumar son of Bhim Sain and one other person were pillion riders on it. Consequently, the police submitted the challan/final police report against Satpal, driver of the scooter for rash and negligent manner and causing injury to the petitioner. The petitioner, who is a student of B.Com, sustained compound fracture over the right femur of his right leg and has led permanent disability for life, besides other injuries. He remained admitted for almost 8 days in the hospital. He is still undergoing the treatment. As such, he has also filed a claim petition (Annexure P3) for compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor accident in question, invoking the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for brevity “the M.V.Act”). 3. According to the petitioner that after six months from the date of accident, Raj Kumar, cousin of accused Satpal, filed a criminal complaint against him, in order to pressurize him to withdraw the criminal and claim cases against his real cousin Satpal, who was driving the offending scooter. After more than one year of the filing of the complaint, the petitioner was summoned to face trial under sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC by the trial Court, by virtue of order dated 5.10.2007 (Annexure P5). 4. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the petitioner claimed that filing of complaint (Annexure P4) and summoning order (Annexure P5) is nothing, but an abuse of process of law and has thus challenged the same, inter-alia, on the ground that the private complaint be quashed as it does not constitute or disclose any cognizable offence, the allegations are absurd, are inherently improbable and the complaint is a counter blast to criminal case (Annexure P2) lodged by him against Satpal accused. 5. The respondent contested the petition and filed the reply, inter-alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition and locus CRM No.M-28866 of 2008 3 standi and cause of action of the petitioner. On merits, the respondent has reiterated the story put forth by him in the complaint (Annexure P4). It will not be out of place to mention here that he has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the petition and prayed for its dismissal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted. 7. As is evident from the record that the petitioner claimed that on the fateful day, Satpal was driving the offending scooter in a rash and negligent manner, while his cousin respondent Raj Kumar and one other person were pillion riders. The accident in question was stated to have been taken place due to rash and negligent driving by Satpal. After the occurrence, the petitioner was removed in an injured condition and was admitted in Escorts Hospital, Faridabad. He was medico legally examined, vide MLR (Annexure P1). 8. Next day, the police recorded the statement of the petitioner, on the basis of which, the criminal case was registered against Satpal, the driver of offending scooter, vide FIR No.14 dated 5.1.2006 (Annexure P2) on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Balabgarh, Distt.Faridabad. The petitioner has also filed a petition (Annexure P3) for compensation under section 166 of the M.V.Act. 9. What is not disputed here is that the respondent filed a private complaint (Annexure P4) against the petitioner on 14.7.2006 i.e. after more than six months of the occurrence, in which, the petitioner was summoned, by way of order dated 5.10.2007 (Annexure P5). In this manner, the contention of learned counsel that a false complaint has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner as a counter blast and to put pressure upon him to withdraw the criminal and claim cases, has considerable force under the present set of circumstances. 10. Not only that, even the respondent filed a claim petition bearing CRM No.M-28866 of 2008 4 No.130 dated 11.8.2006 (Annexure P7) under section 166 of the M.V.Act against the petitioner before the MACT Faridabad. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, issue No.1 was framed in the following manner:- “Whether the accident took place on 4.1.2006 and about 4.40 p.m. At Neemka Mor, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad due to rash and negligent driving of Motor Cycle No.HR-29/N-7357 by respondent No.1, as alleged?OPP” 11. Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of evidence on record, the MACT Faridabad decided issue No.1 against the respondent and dismissed his claim petition, vide judgment/award dated 10.1.2009 (Annexure P7), the relevant operative part of which is as under:- “The onus was upon the claimant and he was required to prove that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the motorcycle driver. The claimant had examined himself and Satpal. It has come in evidence that the police had registered the FIR against Satpal, it was Bal Mukand who got a complaint lodged with the police and Satpal was challaned. A perusal of the MLR Ex.PW2 shows that Raj Kumar was drunk and there was smell of alcohol. There is a note on the report Satpal had stated that he had received injuries but his MLR was not brought on record. The claimant has not led any evidence to show that it was the motorcycle driver who was at fault. It was not shown that the motorcycle driver came on the wrong side and hit the scooter. The police had investigated the matter and had challaned Satpal. They had found negligence on the part of the scooter driver. The fact that the police had challaned Satpal goes against the claimant. It has come in evidence that the challan was presented in the Court. No complaint was made by Satpal regarding his false implication. As a counter to the FIR, a complaint was filed in the Magistrate's Court. The complaint was filed five months after the accident which appears to be an after thought. It is held that the claimant has failed to prove that respondent No.1 was responsible for the accident. The statement of the claimant cannot be accepted. The issue was answered against the claimant.” 12. Thus, it would be seen that if the totality of the facts and CRM No.M-28866 of 2008 5 circumstances and sequence of events, as discussed here-in-above are put together, then to me, the conclusion is irresistible and inescapable that the filing of complaint (Annexure P4) and summoning order (Annexure P5) is a sheer abuse of process of law. The private complaint has been filed by the respondent as a counter blast and in order to put pressure upon the petitioner to withdraw the criminal and claim cases filed by him against Satpal, the cousin brother of Raj Kumar- respondent. 13. The complaint (Annexure P4) is manifestly attended with malafide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance and in order to put pressure upon the petitioner to withdraw the criminal and claim cases. The scope of quashing an FIR or complaint as provided under section 482 of the Code is well settled that where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, then the FIR or complaint, as the case may be, should be quashed. Reliance in this connection can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604. The same view was again reiterated by the three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 92. 14. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that filing of complaint and summoning order are abuse of process of law, has considerable force and contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. Thus, the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is fully attracted to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 15. In this manner, it is held that the false complaint (Annexure P4) has been filed by the complainant to wreck the vengeance from the petitioner and was CRM No.M-28866 of 2008 6 followed with an ulterior motive and malafide intention to pressurize him (petitioner) to withdraw the criminal and claim cases in this relevant connection. Initiation of criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings thereto are deep misuse of the process of law and deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 16. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 17. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is hereby accepted. Consequently, the complaint (Annexure P4), summoning order (Annexure P5) and all subsequent proceedings thereto are hereby quashed in this context. 8.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No