Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1008 (PNJ)

Baldev Singh v. State Of Haryana

2000-08-28

AMAR DUTT

body2000
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Baldev Singh, petitioner, has filed the present petition alleging that out of the five persons named as accused by Kanwaljit Kaur in FIR No. 58 dated 12.4.2000 at Police Station Rania, three persons have been shown in column No. 2 of the challan presented by the Police. Baldev Singh and Anoop Singh are the only two persons who are being proceeded against and Baldev Singh has moved the present petition alleging that the case against him was registered by the police under political pressure at the behest of their cousin Joginder Singh and they should not have been proceeded against as large number of respectables of the village have sworn affidavits vouching for the innocence of the petitioner and the co accused. 2. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, it was submitted that as per the statement of Kanwaljit Kaur, Baldev Singh, Anoop Singh, Lakhvir Singh, Kulwant Kaur and Pritpal Singh on the instigation of Kulwant Kaur had gone into the room where the complainant was sleeping. After she had gone away from the scene, the accused had raped the complainant one by one. It was admitted that three of the persons named in the FIR have been shown in column No. 2 but it was denied that the case against the petitioner was false. 3. Since the challan has already been filed and in view of the allegations which are being made against the petitioner by Kanwaljit Kaur, in my view this case is not a fit one in which interference is called for by this court in the exercise of powers conferred on it under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as none of the circumstance relied upon by the petitioner for quashing the FIR is covered by the guide-lines laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others 1991 (1) RCR 383 : 1991(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 68 (S.C.) "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 and offence or made out a case against the accused. 2. Bhajan Lal and others 1991 (1) RCR 383 : 1991(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 68 (S.C.) "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 and offence or made 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 congnizable 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 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 even 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 of 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 malafide 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." For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the petition and same is accordingly dismissed.