Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 238 (PNJ)

Sewa Singh v. State Of Haryana

2000-02-29

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. Against petitioners - Sewa Singh and Surinder Singh and others, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pehowa framed charges under Sections 420, 148, 149, 452 and 506 I.P.C. in F.I.R. No. 1228 dated 25.12.1997 registered on the complaint of Amar Kaur, wherein she has alleged that on 23.6.1997, 1st petitioner Sewa Singh, in her absence enticed her sons - Veer Singh and Waryam Singh, who were the owners of 4 kanals of land, and got the land transferred in his name instead of Vidyala Gurbani Gurdwara Guru Saharan Sahib Guru Amar Dass. She has alleged that Veer Singh is partly deaf. She has also alleged that on 21.12.1997, herself and her daughter-Sukhbir Kaur were sleeping in a room situate in the disputed land, and at about 3 or 4 a.m., 1st petitioner - Sewa Singh, 2nd petitioner - Surinder Singh and others came and started demolishing the rooms, and also demolished 2 rooms. According to the complainant, they had also taken away the goods lying in the room. It is on the basis of this, the charges have been framed as mentioned above, by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pehowa against which the petitioners and others preferred Criminal Revision 96 of 1998 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kurukshetra. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra dismissed the said revision petition. That is why the petitioners have come forward with this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the order framing charges against the petitioners and others, and also the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the Criminal Revision Petition. 2. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even as per the allegations in the complaint, the husband of the complainant wanted to donate 4 kanals of land to the Vidyala Gurbani Gurdwara Guru Saharan Sahib Guru Amar Dass, and the allegation in the complaint is that 1st petitioner - Sewa Singh in the absence of the complainant, had enticed her sons - Veer Singh and Waryam Singh to get the land transferred in his name instead of the institution, whereas the gift has been made only in the name of the institution and it has been accepted by him on behalf of the institution. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also produced the copy of the register of mutation wherein the property is shown to be in the ownership of the Vidyala mentioned above through the 1st petitioner. Therefore, the petitioners contend that there is no question of any cheating at all. But the learned Sessions Judge has pointed out in his order that Waryam Singh was a minor on the date of the gift deed dated 23.6.1997, having been born in the year 1981 and, therefore, was not competent to execute the gift deed. He has also pointed out the contention of the State that Veer Singh is deaf and that this gift deed has been executed in the absence of the complainant. The case of the complainant is that her sons were enticed and this document was taken from them. The further allegation is that the petitioners and others trespassed into the property, demolished the rooms standing thereon, and also threatened the complainant with death. It may be, that the mutation stands in the name of the institution and not in the name of the 1st petitioner, but the question is whether the sons of the complainant were cheated and document of gift deed was taken from them. The further question is whether the petitioners and others formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed and caused damage to property, as also threatened the complainant. 4. In these circumstances, simply because the mutation stands in the name of the institution, it cannot now be stated that there was no cheating. It is seen that prima facie a case is made out for framing charges. 5. Another contention put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent- State is that the revision petition filed by the petitioners challenging the framing of charges against them having been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is not maintainable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the State relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Deepti @ Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai and others (1995 (3) R.C.R. 638) : [ 1995(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 714 (SC)] wherein it was held that after the dismissal of the first revision by the Sessions Court, the second revision petition is not maintainable under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 6. P.C. 6. But the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon another decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Krishnan v. Krishnaveni and another (1997 (1) R.C.R. 724) : [1997(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 624 (SC)] wherein it was held that though the revision before the High Court under sub- section (1) of Section 397 of Cr. P.C. is prohibited by sub-section (3) thereof, the inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon another decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Ganesh Narayan Hedge v. S. Bangarappa and others (1995 (2) R.C.R. 373) : [1995(2) All India Criminal Law Reporter 211 (SC)] wherein it was held that Section 399 Cr. P.C. does not bar a person from invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. where the revision petition filed against the framing of charge has been dismissed by the Sessions Court. But the Honble Supreme Court, however, held that the High Court cannot act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., but should interfere only where it is satisfied that if the complaint was allowed to be proceeded with, it would amount to abuse of process of Court, or where the interests of justice demand it. 7. Therefore, I find that even if this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is held to be maintainable, this Court can exercise its power only if the complaint is found to be an abuse of process of law or where the interests of justice demanded interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The facts pointed out by me above do not indicate either that the complaint is an abuse of process of Court or that the interests of justice demand interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. This Court while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in such circumstances cannot critically examine the facts. 8. Of course, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed in his order that the learned trial Court should have also framed a charge unde, Section 427 read with Section 149 IPC. He has not himself framed the charge. He has only directed the learned trial Magistrate to do the needful for amendment of the charge. 8. Of course, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed in his order that the learned trial Court should have also framed a charge unde, Section 427 read with Section 149 IPC. He has not himself framed the charge. He has only directed the learned trial Magistrate to do the needful for amendment of the charge. If the trial court takes steps for the amendment of the charge, it should do so after hearing the parties concerned. Ultimately, this petition fails and is dismissed.