Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 933 (PNJ)

Jai Ram v. Anant Ram

2000-08-17

V.M.JAIN

body2000
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners seeking quashment of the criminal complaint under Section 323, 342, 34 IPC pending in the Court of JMIC. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that Anant Ram filed a criminal complaint under Sections 323, 506, 342, 357, 394, 34 IPC against with accused-petitioners Jai Ram etc. After recording the preliminary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 13.12.1991 ordered the summoning of the with accused-petitioners under Sections 323, 342, 34 IPC. Aggrieved against the said order of summoning in the said criminal complaint, with accused-petitioners filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in this Court seeking quashment of the said criminal complaint and the order of summoning passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 3. The petition was admitted to a regular hearing and further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed. 4. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant-respondent. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the with accused-petitioners and have gone through the record carefully. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the with accused-petitioners has submitted that the present complaint is belated and that it is a counter-blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioners side against the complainant side. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the record, I find no merit in the present petition which is liable to be dismissed. 8. Merely because there is a delay in filing the complaint, by itself, would be no ground to quash the complaint. This is especially so when the case of the complainant is that he had reported the matter to the police, but the police had been assuring him to take action against the accused but no action was taken by the police and hence the criminal complaint was filed. Thus, the delay in filing the complaint could not be made the basis for quashing the complaint. So far as the present complaint being a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioners side is concerned, in my opinion, the present complaint could not be quashed even if it is a counter-blast to the earlier complaint filed by the petitioners side. So far as the present complaint being a counter blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioners side is concerned, in my opinion, the present complaint could not be quashed even if it is a counter-blast to the earlier complaint filed by the petitioners side. The matter has to be gone into and considered by the trial Magistrate, in the light of the facts which emerge on the record. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, no case is made out for quashing the criminal complaint. 9. So far as the order of summoning dated 13.12.1991 passed by the learned Magistrate is concerned, in my opinion, no fault could be found with the order of summoning passed by the learned Magistrate. After considering the allegations made in the complaint and after considering the preliminary evidence by the complainant, the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that prima facie a case was made against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 34 IPC and accordingly, the accused were ordered to be summoned for the aforesaid offences. In my opinion, the said order passed by the learned Magistrate is perfectly legal and valid and no fault could be found with the same. 10. For the reasons stated above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed. The stay of further proceedings granted earlier shall stand vacated. 11. Taking into consideration the fact that the criminal complaint is pending since long and proceedings were stayed under the orders of this Court, the trial Magistrate is directed to dispose of the criminal complaint expeditiously by giving it top priority. Accused-petitioners, through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 18.9.2000 on which date the learned Magistrate shall issue notice to the complainant for the next date. Thereafter, he shall proceed with the criminal complaint expeditiously in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.