CRM No. M 33372 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 33372 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.03.2011 Ramanpreet Kaur ........ Petitioner Versus Kulbir Kaur .......Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. M S Bal, Advocate for the respondent/complainant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of complaint case No. RBT No. 381/04/06 titled as Kulbir Kaur v Gurdip Singh and others under Section 323, 324, 452, 34, 506 IPC, P S Goindwal Sahib dated 06.05.2004 (P4), pending in the Court of Shri Deepak Kumar Chaudhary, JMIC, Tarn Taran and summoning order dated 03.04.2007 (P5) passed by Shri Sandeep Kumar Singla, JMIC, Tarn Taran, vide which, Ramanjeet Kaur-accused No. 3 along with co-accused Gurdeep Singh were ordered to be summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 451, 506 IPC and impugned order dated 10.09.2009 (P7) passed by the Court of Shri Deepak CRM No. M 33372 of 2009 2 Chaudhary, JMIC, Tarn Taran vide which, the application for discharging the petitioner was dismissed. On 11.03.2004, at about 5.30pm, respondent Kulbir Kaur wife of Sewa Singh along with Harmit Singh alias Mitta, Baljit Singh alias Kamla sons of Sewa Singh and Bhupinder Kaur alias Pappu daughter of Sewa Singh attacked Gurdeep Singh father of the petitioner and inflicted injuries with kirpan and dangs and case FIR No. 18 dated 17.03.2004 under Sections 325, 323, 34 IPC was registered against them at Police Station Goindwal Sahib. Charges were framed against them and they are facing the trial in the Court of JMIC, Tarn Taran. Thereafter, present complaint was lodged by respondent Kulbir Kaur, alleging therein, that the present petitioner along with her father and mother, who were made as accused No. 1 and 2 entered into the house forcibly and started abusing and further alleged as under:- “Accused No. 2 and 3 caught hold the complainant from her hairs and accused No. 1 gave brick blow on the head of complainant, due to which head injury was caused to the complainant.” Accordingly, the petitioner along with Gurdeep Singh (accused No. 1) who is father of the present petitioner, were ordered to be summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 451, 506 IPC. While challenging the complaint and impugned order dated 03.04.2007 (P5), vide which, the petitioner was summoned and order dated 10.09.2009 (P7), vide which, the application for discharge of the petitioner was dismissed, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present complaint is a counter-blast and is a cross case to the FIR No. 18 dated CRM No. M 33372 of 2009 3 17.03.2004 under Sections 325, 323, 34 IPC, got registered by the father of the petitioner against the respondent and others and if the complaint as well as the statement are taken on their face value, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence. Further, the petitioner was made an accused with a wrong name. Moreover, the petitioner was taking her 10+2 exam at Khadoor Sahib from 2.00 to 5.00 pm and was not present at the place of alleged occurrence. The statement of Kulbir Kaur before the police on 15.03.2004 further makes the position clear that the petitioner was not present at the time of alleged occurrence. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1991 (1) RCR (Crl.) 383 and Pepsi Food Limited and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 749. On the other hand, no reply has been filed by the respondent. However, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the statement of the respondent before the Police cannot be taken into consideration. Heard. The petitioner is a girl aged about 24 years and is studying in B.Sc. (Post Basic) Nursing Final year at SVM Nursing College, Mudhal (Amritsar). The incident is stated to be of around 5.30 pm on 11.03.2004. Respondent Kulbir Kaur and others had inflicted injuries on the father of the petitioner with kirpan and dang. Accordingly, FIR No. 18 dated 17.03.2004 under section 325, 323, 34 IPC, P S Goindwal Sahib was registered against the respondent and others. Statement of the respondent was also recorded by the Police. The said statement reads as under:- CRM No. M 33372 of 2009 4 “I am a resident of Village Bharowal and doing household work. On 11.03.2004 at about 5.30 pm, that Master Gurdeep Singh son of Pala Singh came to his house after closing of the school, who started throwing bricks in the drain after stopping his scooter and I stopped him, but he started abusing me and in the meanwhile, my sons were also came at the spot and during quarrel, Gurdip Singh pushed me and I fell down and due to which an injury was inflicted on my left eye and my husband arranged for the vehicle and got admitted me to CHC Mian wind. The reasons of ill feeling that earlier also there was noisy scenes happened in connection with the discharge of drain water. I am under treatment at CHC Mainwind. Entitled for an action. Please take action. Statement heard which is correct.” There is no allegation qua the present petitioner. Subsequently, a complaint under Section 323, 324, 452, 34, 506 IPC was filed as a counter blast, in which, the present petitioner was named as accused along with her father and mother namely, Gurdeep Singh and Jagjit Kaur. The said Jagjit Kaur, mother of the petitioner has since died. As such, the present petitioner has been summoned along with her father, vide order, dated 03.04.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tarn Taran under Sections 323, 451, 506 read with section 34 IPC. Moreover, complainant/respondent at the first instance did not name the present petitioner while recording her statement to the Police on 15.03.2004. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner has been enroped in the said complaint only to put pressure on the father of the petitioner who is complainant in FIR No. 18 dated 17.03.2004 under Sections 325, 323, 34 CRM No. M 33372 of 2009 5 IPC, P S Goindwal Sahib registered against the respondent and others, to withdraw his allegation or compromise the matter. The name of the petitioner in the complaint has been maliciously introduced. In para 8 of the petition, it is specifically stated that on 11.03.2004, the petitioner had given her exam of 10+2 class at Khadoor Sahib from 2.00 to 5.00 pm and was not present at the place of alleged occurrence. This fact is also evident from the statement of respondent recorded before the police on 15.03.2004, where the petitioner was not named. No reply has been filed by the respondent. Hence, the said averment is not disputed leading to the inevitable conclusion that the present petitioner was not present at the place of alleged occurrence. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Food Limited and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 749 held as under:- “28. Summoning of an accused is a serious matter. Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before CRM No. M 33372 of 2009 6 summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” The trial Court has totally ignored the glaring facts while summoning the petitioner. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others while warning and directing the Courts to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases, laid down a list of such cases, where the Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the FIR. One of the same reads as under :- (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.” It is evident from the facts and discussion as held above that the name of the present petitioner has been added in the present complaint only to put pressure on her father to compromise the State case against them and her name is introduced subsequently as an after thought, which is nothing but malicious. Therefore, the present case is squarely covered under the above category as indicated by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), where the High Court may exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash an FIR in order to stop the perpetuating of CRM No. M 33372 of 2009 7 injustice. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and complaint case No. RBT No. 381/04/06 titled as Kulbir Kaur v Gurdip Singh and others, under Section 323, 324, 452, 34, 506 IPC, P S Goindwal Sahib dated 06.05.2004 (P4), pending in the Court of Shri Deepak Kumar Chaudhary, JMIC, Tarn Taran as well as summoning order dated 03.04.2007 (P5) passed by Shri Sandeep Kumar Singla, JMIC, Tarn Taran, vide which, Ramanjeet Kaur-accused No. 3 was ordered to be summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 451, 506 IPC is hereby quashed qua the present petitioner only. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 23.03.2011 mohan