IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.29440 -M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : MARCH 03, 2010 GURJIT SINGH & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UDHAMJIT .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. SC Chhabra, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate, for the respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of complaint dated 18.9.2007 (Annexure P-6) entitled “Udhamjit vs. Tejpal Singh and others” and order dated 9.7.2008 (Annexure P-8), vide which the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial for commission of offences under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code. The petition has been filed only on behalf of Gurjit Singh son of Sham Singh and Navbeer Singh son of Tejpal Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the petition in regard to Gurjit Singh (petitioner No.1). The petition in regard to petitioner No.1-Gurjit Singh is, Criminal Misc. No.29440 -M of 2008 2 accordingly, disposed of as not pressed. Since Gurjit Singh is more than 70 years of age, his personal appearance before the trial court shall remain exempt, on the conditions to be imposed by the trial court. It is further made clear that all the pleas taken in the petition would be available to Gurjit Singh, to be taken before the trial court. In regard to petitioner No.2-Navbeer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the incident took place on 27.4.2007. The petitioner-side was injured, whereupon case FIR No.27 dated 28.4.2007 under Sections 307, 324, 148, 149, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Cantt., Ferozepur, was lodged. The case is at the trial stage. Learned counsel further contends that in the context of the same incident, Udhamjit (complainant of the impugned complaint) made a complaint to the police for lodging of a cross FIR/case. Udhamjit is an eye witness and knew Navbeer Singh insomuch as Tejpal Singh, father of Navbeer Singh, and Tarlochan Singh, father of Udhamjit, are real brothers. Despite such being the facts, Navbeer Singh has not been named in the DDR, which shows that, as an afterthought, Navbeer Singh has been falsely implicated while lodging the impugned complaint. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has been very fair to the court while admitting the relationship of Udhamjit with Navbeer Singh. In the context of Annexure P-7 i.e. DDR entered at the instance of Udhamjit, it transpires that Navbeer Singh has not been named as one of the persons involved in commission of crime against Udhamjit and others, as per his own version. Criminal Misc. No.29440 -M of 2008 3 It is not in dispute that Udhamjit knew Navbeer Singh, the two being cousins. It is further made out from DDR (Annexure P-7), entered at the instance of Udhamjit on 30.4.2007 in regard to the incident of 27.4.2007, that Navbeer Singh has not been mentioned as one of the accused/assailants. Only Tejpal Singh and Surjit Singh along with “three more boys” have been mentioned as the offenders. Surely, if Navbeer Singh was known to Udhamjit, the two being closely related, Udhamjit would have mentioned the name of Navbeer Singh. The impugned complaint itself has been filed by Udhamjit on 18.9.2007 i.e. after about 5 months of the incident, wherein Udhamjit has named Navbeer Singh as one of the accused. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case noticed above, I am of the considered opinion that Navbeer Singh (petitioner No.2) has been implicated for mala fide reasons so as to cause harassment to him. If Navbeer Singh was, in fact, involved in the commission of the alleged crime, Udhamjit would have named Navbeer Singh in the complaint made to the police on 30.7.2007, in regard to which the DDR was entered. In regard to the same incident, however, Navbeer Singh has been named as one of the offenders in the complaint. The facts and circumstances clearly indicate that continuance of proceedings against Navbeer Singh would be an abuse of process of law and an abuse of process of court. Navbeer Singh has been implicated in the complaint, so as to involve the entire family. The petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent that proceedings in the complaint (Annexure P-6) in relation to Navbeer Criminal Misc. No.29440 -M of 2008 4 Singh, are hereby quashed. March 03, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?