64 d0 RevNo1250 of 2009 1 INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R M 94 k Crl RevIlo1250 of 2009 Date of deCISIon DecemberL 2009 k k 7 R k Balbir Singh Io Petitioner 1 Versus tr 0 C Statof Punjaband another eRespondents CD I k lk 1c 4C Z CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE JORA SINGH R 9c k R W I Present Mr H S Baidwan Advocate for the petitioner 08 1 t Mr P S Sidhu Additional Advocate General Punjab Vm5 M VijayLath Advocate for respondent no 2 Qe 04 ek A 1r ek JORA SINGH J Ba 1bir Singh fiIed this revlsion for quashingof the summoningorder dated 611 2007 Annexure P71 and the order dated 172009 to frame charge64nnexureP1 1 and the charge sheet Annexure P21 Complaint 4nnexure P dated 1232007under Sections 323 341 506 IPC read with Section 3 of ScheduIed Castes and Schedules Tribes Preventlon of Atrocitiesl Act was Rashmi 2013.03.26 11: 30 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 r 65 f7 Crl RevVo 1250 of 2009 2 1 institutedbyHarbhajanKaur againstBalbir Singhand relevant paras of the complaintare reproduced as underl 2 That there is a Iand bearing KhewatlKhatauniNo71129 bearingKhasra N0237 3e191 238 181 total measuring4k 7m as per Jamabandi for the year 2002003 situated in the 1 area of VillageMukarabpurH311 43 Tehsil mmme Chamkaur Sahib District Ropar The Iand In questionhas been used by the Villagersfor storing their cow dungand dungcakes 3 That the Iand in question IS common Iand of the villageand some Iand was in possessionof the complainantwhich was used by the complainantto store her COW dungand dung cakes 4 That the accused IS inimical towards tlIe complainantdue to party faction 1 removingthe dungcakes which IS In possessionof the complainant The site plan of the disputedpoint is attached herewith 5 That when accused started removing the cow dung and cakes forciblythe complainantasked the accused not to dispossess her from the space on this the accused misbehaved with the complainantand assaulted the complairIant and started givingfilthy abuses by asking that Rashmi 2013.03.26 11: 30 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 4 CRev No 1250 of 2009 3 0 Behan Chood Kutti Chamari Dekh Da Han Hun Goha Kithe Sut Di Hain and also threatened to construct Iattine on the Iand allotted to the complainant which wasin herpossession 6 That the accused very well knew that the complainantbelongsto HarijanCaste and 1 Q he intentionallyused these derogatorywords 4r 0 againstthe complainantand her caste and violated C I the Iaw of the Iand 0 7 That the occurrence was I witnessed by Smt Ginder Kaur and one Karnail Z Singhof villageMubarakpurThe matter has been 1Jl reportedto the police but as the accused is an influential persons the policehas put up the matter 06 4 rll on one pretextoron the other and finallyyesterday 7 the police has flatly refused to take any action Z againstthe accused hence this applicationbefore Qm this Honble Court Notice of motion was issued Learned counsel for the petitionerarguedthat in support of the complaint HarbhajanKaur producedthree witnesses besides appearingherself as PW In the complaintor 1n the statement of witnesses there is not a word on which date and time occurrence had taken place In the absence of date and time petitionerwont be 117a positionto defend himself and In view of the evidence in supportof the complaintno questionto frame charge Simpleallegationof the Rashmi 2013.03.26 11: 30 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 Crl Rev No 1250 of 2009 4 is that petitionerhad abused her and restrainedher from in some direction but this fact is not correct one because IeO Iegof the petitioneris amputatedbelow the knee Petitioner moves with great difficulty He cannot restrain anybodyto move in any direction Complaintwas institutedat the instance of the opposite partyin the villagebecause petItioner is the Sarpanchof the village 1 1 Learnedcounsel for the respondentarguedthat as per 0 evidenceon the file petitionerwas rghtlysummoned under Sections 0 I 341and 506 IPC read with Section 39xl of the Scheduled Caste and 0 d Scheduled Tribe Atrocities Act WhiIe framingcharge Court Is simplyto see whether a primafacie case is made out to frame Z t chargeor not Detailed order is not required When the accused is to be discharged or acquittedonlythen detailed order is required I Submission of the Iearned counsel for the petitioner 8 seems to be reasonable one Annexure P3 is the copy of the 7 complaintbut paras no 2 3 4 5 6 and 7 reproducedin the earlier Z part of the judgmentare silent regardingthe date and time on which petitionerhad used derogatoryIanguageagainst the complainant Accordingto the complaintoccurrence was witnessed by Ginder Kaur and Karnail Singh Annexure P4 is the copy of the statement of the respondentbut statement of the respondentis silent regardingthe date and time on which petitioneihad used derogatory IanguageAccordingto the respondentthere is common Iand of the villageand the same IS beingused for the preparationof cowlung cakes Annexure P5 is the statement of Karnail Singh Annexure P Rashmi 2013.03.26 11: 30 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 7 Crl Revllo 1250 of 2009 5 4 7 6 is the statement of Ginder Kaur but Annexure P5 and Annexure P 6 are also silent the date and time on which date Balbir Singhhad used derogatoryIanguage One thingis clear from the statementof the respondentand witnesses that the petitionerIS of the villageand there is partyfaction in the villageThere is common Iand which is beingused by the respondentand other 1 0 personsto store garbageand prepare cowlung cakes Second 4 0 of the respondentand the witnesses is to the effect that C I due to pattyfaction petitionerintends to remove the respondent from C5 I the common Iand One daypetitionerstarted removingthe cowIung cakes etc ofthe respondentfromthe placein her possessionand Z the respondentstoppedhim then petitionerstaned abusing her Petitioner has used following words I Bhenchood Kuti Chamari VekhnaHun Goha Kithe sut di hain 51 C45 Secondlythe petitionerwas threaten ing to co nstruct a 7 toilet there Z Evidence isto be Ied as per pleadings In the complaint date and time of occurrence is missing Question is whether the offence was committed one year back 2 years back or five years backNhether the derogatoryIanguage was used in the morning evening or duringnighttime In the absence of date and time petitioneris not in a positionto defend himself In State of Delhi vs Gvan Devi 200041 RCR Criminall 517 chargewas framed bytrial Coutt It was held that High Court cannot quash chargeon the ground that the charge againstaccused was not IikeIyto succeed This questionhas to be Rashmi 2013.03.26 11: 30 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 Crl RevVo 1250 of 2009 61 4 consideredby trial Coutt after recordingentire evidence At the time of framingof chargethe trial Court is not to examine and assess in detail the materials placedon recod by the prosecutiono r is it for the Courtto consider the sufficiencyof the materials to establish the offence allegedagainstthe accused persons At the stage of chargethe Court is to examine the materials onlywlth a view to be r satisfiedthat a primafacie case of the commission of offence alleged 0 has been made out againstthe accused persons 0 I In Swaran Sinqh and others VS State throuqh C5 I Standinq counsel and another 200841 RCR iminall 74 petitionfor quashingof FI R Challan put up and chargeframed 2 While quashingthe Fl R Court is to see whether on perusalof the r FI R treatingthe allegationsto be correct a criminal offence is prima I facie made out or not At this stage correctness or otherwise of the 08 allegationin the FlR are not to be seen by the high Court m Allegations are to be seen at the time of trial Z In Chittaranian Das vs State of VB AIR 1963 SC 1 It has been held as unde Al Criminal P 5 of 18981 S222 l lChargeFraming ofBasic requirement of criminal trialChargeto which sulsec6l lof S2 appliesParticulardate or time not mentioned Irl is not invalid solelyfor this reason 1 1 Where an accused is charged with Rashmi 2013.03.26 11: 30 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 70 0 Crl RevVol 250 of 2009 171 4 iminal breach of trust or dishonest of money then sub sectior21of 222 Criminal P providesinter alia that it is Sufficient to specifythe dates between which the oHence is allegedto have been committed However it cannot from this provisionbe argued C that in all other cases to which sulsectior1 1 of 0 Section 222 appliesparticularas to the time of the 0 I allegedoffence must be specificallymentionecl For 9 it is permissibleIn a charge to which 222l l I appliesto state that the particularoHence was Z 111 committedon or about a certain datef so then it Q cannot be held that because a periodof four or five I or SlX daysis indicated in the chargewithin which 08 r the offence is alleged to have been committed 7 Section 22211had been contravened Z The requirementof S 222 is that the accused personmust have a reasonablysufficient notice as to the case againsthim The basic requirement117 every criminal trial therefore IS that the charge must be so framed as to givethe accused person a fairlyreasonable idea as to the case which he is no face and the validityof the changemust in each case be determined by the applicationof the tes namely had the accused a reasonablysufficient Rashmi 2013.03.26 11: 30 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 r Crl Rev No 1250 of 2009 8 noticeof the matter with which he was changed2 Where it is possibleto specify precisely the necessaty requiredby Section 222 the oughtto mention the said particular in thecharge but where the said particularscannot be preciselyspecifiedin the chargehavingregard r to the nature of the information available to the 0 failure to mention such particularmay C not invalidate the charge C5 It therefore follows that in dealingwith I the questionas to whether the chargeframed in a Z criminal trial has contravened S2 lI the Court Y will have to examine all the relevant facts and if it appearsto be Court that havingregardto them the chargecould and oughtto have been framed more preciselythe Court may reach the conclusion and then enquirewhether the defective charge has Ied to the prejudiceof the accused S 1n the case in hand Iearned counsel for the respondent failed to convince how the petitioneris to defend when no date and time has been mentioned in the complaintor in the statements of the witnesses Annexures P4 f5 and F61 There is no document on the file as to what is the number and area of the common Iand belg used to prepare cowadungcakes CompIaintand the evidence iS silent whether the occurrence had taken place while presentin the Rashmi 2013.03.26 11: 30 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 P1 Crl Rev No1250 of 2009 9 commonIand of the viliageor placeof occurrence was the private of somebody If we presume that place of occurrence was in the common Iand even lhen no date and time has been mentioned when petitionerhad used derogatoryianguage In 1K Aqqarwal vs Jasiit Sinqh 2007141 RCR Criminall 242 complaintwas under Section 31 21of ScheduIed 1 Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of AtrocitieslAct on the 0 allegation that accused had used derogatoryIanguageagainstthe C0 complainant but date and placewere not disclosed in the complatnt 0 I Complaint was quashed In the casein hand approxlmatedate and time were not mentionecl Place of occurrence is also vague Z Without date and time and placeof incident petitioneris not in a C posltionto defend himself properlyas to whether about one year I back or two years back in the morningor eveningor duringnight 08 ttme derogatoryIanguage was used againstthe complainant 7 In the Iightof above discussion am of the opinionthat Z continuation of the complaintand the summoningorder is a clear cut tl mIsuse of the process of Court ComplaintAnnexure P71 and summoningorder dated 611 2007 are ordered to be quashed December1 2009 SINGH 1 ritu JUDGE J 0 t l 91 1 Rashmi 2013.03.26 11: 30 True Scanned Copy Of the Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document