Crl. Misc. No. M-10945 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-10945 of 2008 Decided on : 21-07-2009 Sukhminder Singh and another ....Petitioners VERSUS Balraj Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. P.P.S.Duggal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mandeep K Saajan, Advocate for the respondent. MAHESH GROVER, J This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of a complaint (Annexure P-6) and the consequent summoning order dated 11.8.2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Trial Court. Complainant-respondent Balraj Singh preferred a complaint against the petitioners and number of other persons namely Harpal Singh, Baljeet Singh and Raj Singh under the provisions of Section 500, 506 IPC. The essence of the allegations against the petitioners and other persons has been brought in para nos. 2 to 6 of the complaint which are extracted hereunder:- “2. That the complainant enjoyed good reputation in the area among the relative and neighbourhood, the father of the complainant is lambardar from the last 25/30 Crl. Misc. No. M-10945 of 2008 2 years and is also Cashier in the Gurudwara Sahib. All the people of the area were giving lot of regards and respect to the complainant and used to call the complainant at the time of trouble or happy occasion and do consult with the complainant, the village folks were very happy because of the good deeds of him and the complainant enjoys god reputation in the village. 3. That accused no.2, Baljeet Singh s/o Gainda Singh has given an application to the SSP, Faridkot against the complainant and Gursewak Singh s/o Atma Singh which was totally false and has been given on wrong facts, there was no truth in it. This application was marked to SP(H) Faridkot and because of this application the police visited the house of complainant and Gursewak Singh and because of the rounds of the police, in the village the reputation of the complainant was hited among the relatives and in the village, the police was treating the complainant like an accused and the police totally conniving with the complainant has harassed the petitioner a lot and many times, the police persons, forcibly brought the complainant as accused from the village to the police station and because of coming to the office of SP(H), Faridkot the village folks started looking to the complainant as accused, the complainant also appeared before the office SP(H), Faridkot and also waited outside his office, there the persons of area and other known persons, started looking to the complainant as accused. 4. That accused no. 2 Baljeet Singh is a very clever person, by Crl. Misc. No. M-10945 of 2008 3 making wrong statement he has got the post of Chowkidari from the office of SDM, Faridkot on 29.10.2002 while his date of birth is 15.10.85 and accused no.2 was minor at that time he concealed his age and got the Chowkidari. 5. That the accused no.1 to 5 in conspiracy to take the revenge, gave a false application against the complainant and Gursewak Singh ,which was marked to SP(H) Faridkot that application was inquired into, SP(H) has called both the parties in the office, because of this police also went to the house of complainant and in the village and the police has also made a gathering in the village and upon the application of the accused complainant and Gursewak Singh was called in the gathering because of this the complainant has to suffered lot of insult and his reputation was lowered. The above stated accused person has defamed the complainant among the relations and in the village and under conspiracy by stating wrong facts has given the application against the complainant. After inquiry it was found false and it was consinged. 6. That the above stated accused persons intentionally has given a false application there was no truth in it, there are allegations of showing hated to the caste in the application, this application came in the hands of the senior police officials of the area and the complainant has to appear beore them and to put up his defence, because of this the reputation of the complainant was lowered among the relatives in Crl. Misc. No. M-10945 of 2008 4 neighbourhood and in the area and all started looking to the complainant as accused. When the persons of the village, neighbourhood and relations came to know this, they stop calling the petitioner in own their occasions in their house and have broken the ties with him. Because of the action of the above stated accused person the reputation of the complainant is lowered in the society and the reputation which the complainant was enjoying in the neighbourhood and in the area it has also been effected” Apart from the above allegations there is no other allegation against the petitioners. Learned Trial Court before whom the complaint was presented after recording of the preliminary evidence summoned the petitioners and other persons to stand trial. In the instant petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that complaint is an abuse of the process of law. He has stated that:- (i) that a perusal of the complaint does not disclose of commission of any offence (ii) even if the allegations are taken to be correct, they does not constitute commission of any offence by the petitioners and other persons (iii) that complaint is a counter blast to the complaint initiated by accused Baljit Singh who had filed a complaint against Atma Singh the present complainant under the provisions of Section 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Atrocities to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act. Crl. Misc. No. M-10945 of 2008 5 (iv) that the petitioners were arrayed as accused by the complainant because they were mentioned as witnesses in the complaint preferred by Baljit Singh. (v) that the complainant has effected the compromise with Baljit Singh and withdrawn the complaint which is reflected from Annexure R-4 and as a result thereof, there are no proceedings against Baljit Singh whereas petitioners continue to face the trial. Learned counsel prays that in view of the aforesaid, the present petition deserves to be accepted and the complaint and the consequent summoning order dated 11.8.2007 deserve to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that there are specific averments in the complaint against the petitioners which reveal the commission of a specific offence for which they have been rightly summoned. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Kulbir Singh Uberoi versus M/s Kumar Industries (P&H) 2007 (3) RCR (Crl) 147 to contend that once cognizance has been taken by the Trial Court in the complaint then the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C which is to be used sparingly should not be ordinarily exercised and let the Trial Court decide the matter. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is no doubt that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C should be exercised sparingly but if the Court is confronted with a situation where abuse of the power is implicit from the facts of the case then in such an eventuality power under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised in order to thwart such an abuse at the hands of the complainant. The provisions of Crl. Misc. No. M-10945 of 2008 6 Section 482 Cr.P.C are extracted hereunder:- Section 482:- Saving of inherent powers of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” In case State of Haryana and others versus Bhajan Lal and others AIR 1992 SC 604(1) following tests were laid down for considering the quashing of a complaint:- 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable Crl. Misc. No. M-10945 of 2008 7 offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/ or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” A perusal of the extract of the complaint which has been reproduced above even if taken to be correct on the face of it does not reveal commission of any offence. The allegations are simply vague and sweeping in nature. There is no averment in the complaint as to how the complaint preferred by Baljit Singh against the complainant was at the behest of the petitioners. The defamation if any was at the hands of Baljeet Singh but as has transpired in another Crl. Misc. No. 5426 M of 2008 which was also Crl. Misc. No. M-10945 of 2008 8 listed alongwith this petition, Baljeet Singh has settled the matter with Atma Singh against whom the primary allegations under the provisions of Section 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Atrocities to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act were there. It is Baljeet Singh who had initiated complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Atrocities to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act against Atma Singh wherein the petitioners were cited as witnesses. The instant complaint at the behest of the respondent is also primarily directed against Baljeet Singh who has stated to have settled the matter with Atma Singh and withdrawn the complaint against him, which is reflected from Annexure R-4 which was placed on record in Crl. Misc. No. M-5426 of 2008. In any eventuality, even if all such circumstances are taken to be correct, the fact remains the same that complaint does not reflect commission of any offence. Even if taken on its face value and all allegations are taken to be correct, it is unlikely to result in conviction as the complaint itself does not disclose commission of any offence. The complaint is obviously an abuse of the process of law.Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and complaint (Annexure P-6) and the consequent summoning order dated 11.8.2007 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Trial Court are hereby quashed. July 21, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge