Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 393 (PNJ)

Shiv Singh v. Surbir Singh

2000-04-07

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2000
Judgment Bakhshish Kaur, J. 1. Shiv Singh, Kesar Singh and Udhay Singh Pial- petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint No. 211/1996 titled as Surbir Singh v. Shiv Singh and others, under Section 500 IPC. 2. Surbir Singh-complainant has filed a complaint under Section 500 IPC, Annexure P.1 against as many as eight accused including the present petitioners. The facts which have bearing on the decision of the issue raised in petition would be appreciated in a better manner if the allegations being the basis of the case, as contained in the complaint, are reproduced., Para 2 of the complaint Annexure P.2 dated June 7, 1996 reads as under: "2. That the accused with common intention and in order to cause loss to the complainant, made a frivolous and vexatious complaint against the complainant in writing to the Honble Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh on 2.10.1995 levelling false and baseless allegations therein. The accused alleged in the said complaint that Rs. 1,88,500/- was collected from Bathinda when on the point of fact, this amount was collected from whole Punjab and Rs. 68,180/ - from Bathinda only, being the funds for effected persons due to earthquake in Uttar Khand (U.P.) in 1991. The accused further levelled false allegations that most of the amount has been misused by the complainant and kept with him. When as a matter of fact no amount has been misused or kept by the complainants. This fact is within knowledge of the accused." 3. It is further alleged that the accused got published the aforesaid allegations in the newspapers. By levelling these false allegations, the reputation of the complainant has been lowered in the eyes of the friends, colleagues, relatives and the public in general. The police has also raided his house in the presence of the neighbours. Therefore, action may be taken against them for committing offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. In addition to this, it was prayed that the accused be ordered to pay Rs. five lakhs to the complainant on account of causing damage and agony to the complainant. 4. The police has also raided his house in the presence of the neighbours. Therefore, action may be taken against them for committing offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. In addition to this, it was prayed that the accused be ordered to pay Rs. five lakhs to the complainant on account of causing damage and agony to the complainant. 4. The primary submission of the petitioners is that the impugned complaint Annexure P.1 is not maintainable because earlier a complaint under Section 500 IPC filed on the same facts and allegations against the petitioner and others was dismissed on merits. Therefore, the complaint Annexure P.1 as well as the summoning order are liable to be quashed. 5. Notice was issued and duly served on Surbir Singh- complainant, now respondent, but none has appeared on his behalf. 6. I have heard Mr. Pardeep Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I.P.S. Sidhu, learned Assistant Advocate- General for the State of Punjab. 7. The petitioners are seeking the relief of quashing the complaint Annexure P.1 as well as the summoning order Annexure P.2. The order Annexure P.2 does not reflect its true meaning. Whether it was a summoning order? A bare reading of the same reveals that the complaint which was dismissed in default was restored vide order Annexure P.2. Therefore, in order to appreciate the facts brought on the record, it was considered appropriate to summon the record from the trial Court, and the same has been perused. 8. The impugned complaint dated 7.6.1996 is Annexure P.1 filed by Surbir Singh - complainant against Shiv Singh and others. Prior to this, Surbir Singh complainant along with Bikram Singh Bist, Mahipal Singh, Khushal Chand and Mathura Parshad had filed a complaint dated 12.12.1995 Annexure P.3 under Section 500 IPC against Shiv Singh and others-the present accused. The complaint Annexure P.3 was dismissed by Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda vide his detailed order Annexure P.4. After holding inquiry as is envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and finding no sufficient grounds to proceed with the complaint against the accused under Section 500 IPC, the same was dismissed on 8.8.1996. 9. The allegations contained in both the complaints are similar. There is hardly any change of words in both these complaints Annexures P.1 and P.3. 9. The allegations contained in both the complaints are similar. There is hardly any change of words in both these complaints Annexures P.1 and P.3. The allegations in both these complaints against the accused are that the accused-petitioners had written a letter to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh dated 2.10.1995 alleging the collection of amount to the tune of Rs. 1,88,500/- under the garb of relief fund to be disbursed to the earthquake victims of Uttarkhand in U.P. and misuse of the same. 10. The complaint Annexure P.1 is almost ditto copy of the earlier complaint Annexure P.3. In the complaint Annexure P.3, there were five complainants and the last para of the complaint Annexure P.3 reads as under : "It is therefore, prayed that the accused may kindly be summoned and punished in accordance with law. It is further prayed that the accused be ordered to pay Rs. defaming the complainants." 11. Adverting to the impugned complaint Annexure P.1, which is the subsequent one, dated 7.6.1996, though filed by only one complainant namely Surbir Singh, it is prayed as under : "It is, therefore, prayed that the accused may kindly be summoned and punished in accordance with law mental agony, defaming the complainant." 12. This shows that at the time of drafting the complaint or filing the complaint, the complainant had lost sight of the fact that he was the sole complainant i.e. the other complainants named in the complaint Annexure P.3 were not the complainants along with him in complaint Annexure P.1 Even then, it was prayed that the accused be ordered to pay Rs. five lakhs to each complainant i.e. to him and other complainants whereas there was no other complainant along with him in this complaint. Thus, the question of making a prayer on behalf of the other complainants by using the words "to each complainant" would not have arisen had it been a fact that the complaint is a genuine or bona fide one. 13. The other important question to be decided in this case is whether the complaint Annexure P.1 can be allowed to continue, particularly when another complaint, Annexure P.3 dated 12.12.1995 lodged on the same facts and allegations, has already been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order Annexure P.4. This order was passed by the Court after appraisal of the preliminary evidence brought on the record by the complainant. This order was passed by the Court after appraisal of the preliminary evidence brought on the record by the complainant. It cannot be said that this order was passed by the court in a casual manner, on an incomplete record, or, a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint or it was manifestly absurd or unjust. Had it been so, then the second complaint could be filed on the same facts and it could be entertained in exceptional circumstances. But in the given set of circumstances, when the complaint Annexure P.3 was dismissed on merits vide a detailed order Annexure P.4, i.e. after the decision has been given against the complainant on a full consideration of his case, then certainly the second complaint cannot be enquired into which has been filed on the same facts and on the same allegations. It is immaterial that in the complaint Annexure P.3 there were as many as five complainants including Surbir Singh and in the complaint, Annexure P.1. which is impugned, there is only one complainant-Surbir Singh. In fact, reading of both these complaints would show that it is Surbir Singh who was allegedly affected by the letter allegedly sent by the accused to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh bringing to his notice the collection of the amount under the garb of relief fund for the earthquake victims of Uttarkhand and misuse of the same. His Co-complainants in complaint Annexure P.3 were not named nor it is made out from these complaints that the accused had made allegations against them as well. 14. Mr. Pardeep Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Pramatha Nath Talukdar and Surneder Mohan Basu v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar - AIR 1962 SC 876 wherein it was held that where a complaint is filed and the Magistrate in an inquiry held under Section 202, takes the evidence offered by the complainant into consideration and comes to the conclusion that there is no ground to proceed, that the evidence is not worthy of credit and that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the complaint, he is entitled to refuse to issue the process and dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. 15. In the given case in hand, the trial Court finding no sufficient grounds to proceed with the complaint had dismissed the same vide order Annexure P.4. 15. In the given case in hand, the trial Court finding no sufficient grounds to proceed with the complaint had dismissed the same vide order Annexure P.4. Therefore, bringing a fresh complaint on the same facts and allegations would be a gross abuse of the process of the Court and was not within the object of furthering the interests of justice. Thus, on the face of it, the second complaint Annexure P.1 is nothing else but an abuse of the process of the Court, having been filed with a view to harass the petitioners and the same is liable to be quashed. 16. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to highlight certain facts which are quite apparent froth the record of the trial Court. The complaint was dismissed by the Court on 12.11.1997 on account of non- appearance of the complainant. Later on, nearly after about one month, it was restored to its original stage by the trial Court by passing a very sketchy order. 17. I have not been able to lay my hands on the order passed by the Magistrate for summoning the accused. Whether any order was ever passed by the Court after the complainant had closed his preliminary evidence. For this purpose, I would like to reproduce certain orders passed by the Court on the summoned file and those orders read as under : "Present : Complainant with the counsel. No one is present. On request, case is adjourned to 22.8.1997 for preliminary evidence on the complainant. Complainant be summoned again for the date fixed. Sd/-JMIC Bathinda/ 2.7.1997." "Present : Complainant with counsel. Complainant present and examined. Complainant close his preliminary evidence. Now, to come up on 4.9.1997 for arguments. Sd/- JMIC Bathinda/22.8.1997." "Present : Complainant in person. Arguments are not prepared. Adjournment is requested which is allowed in the interest of justice. Now to come up on 27.9.1997 for arguments. Sd/- JMIC Bathinda/4.9.1997." "Present : Complainant in person. Case received by transfer. It be registered. The case stands adjourned to 21.10.1997 for argument. Sd/-JMIC Bathinda/27.9.1997." "Present : Complainant in person. Adjournment is requested and granted. Now to come up on 12.11.1997 for argument. Sd/- JMIC Bathinda/21.10.1997." "Present : None. Complainant called several times since morning, but none has appeared. It is already 3.30 P.M. Complainant called again, but none has appeared. Hence, the instant complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/-JMIC Bathinda/27.9.1997." "Present : Complainant in person. Adjournment is requested and granted. Now to come up on 12.11.1997 for argument. Sd/- JMIC Bathinda/21.10.1997." "Present : None. Complainant called several times since morning, but none has appeared. It is already 3.30 P.M. Complainant called again, but none has appeared. Hence, the instant complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution. File be consigned to the judicial records room. Announced : Sd/ JMIC Bathinda/12.11.1997." "Present : Complainant with counsel. Heard. The complainant has filed an application for restoration of the complaint which was dismissed in default on 12.11.1997. For the reasons as mentioned in the application, the instant complaint is restored at its original number and date. The accused be summoned for 7.2.1998." Sd/- JMIC Bathinda/13.12.1997. 18. The reproduction of these interlocutory orders as above do not indicate as to on which date the accused were orderd to be summoned as to whether any order was passed by the Court under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that a prima facie case under Section 500 IPC is made out against the accused or not. 19. It is a summons case and on the appearance of the accused, the relevant order passed by the court reads as under : "Present : Complainant with Shri Rajan Sharma, Adv. All accused on bail with Sh. Rajbhypinder Singh, Adv. Notice of allegation served to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Let PWs be summoned for 19.1.1998." Sd/- JMIC/27.11.1998." 20. Though it is notice of allegation which was ordered to be served upon the accused but on the contrary charge has been framed against them and they all have been charged for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. The chargesheet is on page No. 9 of the record of the trial Court. 21. In addition to this, the accused-petitioners had filed an application for dismissal of the complaint and withdrawal of notice as the complainant had concealed the factum of dismissal of his previous complaint filed on the same facts. This application has not been disposed of by the trial Court and it was simply ordered that it be put up with the file on the next date fixed i.e. 19.1.1999. Even on the date fixed, no order whatsoever was passed on this application. This application has not been disposed of by the trial Court and it was simply ordered that it be put up with the file on the next date fixed i.e. 19.1.1999. Even on the date fixed, no order whatsoever was passed on this application. Anyway no serious notice can be taken of this application because this application was filed by the accused-petitioners on 30.11.1998 whereas earlier to that i.e. on 27.11.1998, the Court had already passed an order after hearing the parties that notice of allegation be served to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Learned counsel representing the petitioners should have brought this fact to the notice of the Court on the date when the accused were served with the notice of the allegation. 22. Considering all these facts, especially the fact that the second complaint on the same facts and allegations will not be maintainable nor it can be allowed to continue as a similar complaint on the same facts and allegations has already been dismissed on merits by the Court vide order Annexure P.4, therefore, the continuation of the present complaint and the proceedings flowing therefrom would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. As such, the complaint Annexure P.1 and the proceedings flowing therefrom are hereby quashed. Order accordingly.