Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1122 (PNJ)

B. Singh v. State Of Haryana

2001-10-12

V.M.JAIN

body2001
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioners, seeking quashment of FIR 517 dated 17.12.2000, under Section 379, IPC of Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula. 2. In the petition, it was alleged that petitioner No. 1 had filed CWP No. 11431 of 2000 in this Court, by way of public interest litigation, seeking a restraint in the illegal commercial mining, being carried out by mining-mafia, in Sukhna/Saketri Cho, a rivulet, feeding Sukhna Lake. It was alleged that the petitioner No. 1 appeared in the said writ petition in person. It was alleged that the about 150 trucks used to leave the place with sand and clay every day and that to check this illegal mining, the petitioner had filed the aforesaid petition in this court. It was alleged that when the writ petition was heard by this Court, the petitioner had argued, in person, that every vehicle, involved in the commercial illegal mining, should be photographed and its registration No. should be recorded and that action, as per law, should be taken against the owners of such vehicles, involved in the commercial illegal mining. It was alleged that this Court had issued interim order, copy Annexure P2, vide which this Court had desired that atleast one Chowkidar be employed to keep a vigil that no unauthorised minor mineral was extracted and that the said chowkidar could note down the registration No. of the vehicle, involved in extracting the minor mineral and to communicate it to the concerned authority, for taking necessary action against the offenders. It was alleged that even though the mining mafia pocketed about 20 to 30 lakhs, between May to October, 2000, as per the written statement filed by SP Panchkula, not a single vehicle/person was apprehended in this regard, even though FIR 347 dated 29.8.2000 under Section 379, IPC, was registered in Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula. It was alleged that ever since the petitioner No. 1 had filed the abovesaid writ petition in this Court and this Court had passed the order, copy Annexure P2, the mining mafia was reluctant to extract the minor mineral in broad-day light, as a result of which, their illegitimate earning was curtailed. It was alleged that the mining mafia could put pressure upon the Panchkula Police to remove petitioner No. 1 from the scene. It was alleged that the mining mafia could put pressure upon the Panchkula Police to remove petitioner No. 1 from the scene. It was alleged that in pursuance thereof, the Panchkula Police arrested petitioner No. 3, Hari Narain, a labourer, while he was standing at Saketri Cho bank and he was taken to the Police Station/Police Post and was given beatings and thereafter, he was brought back along with plastic bags, kassi, tokri and photographer and was photographed at Sukhna Cho, in digging pose. It was alleged that thereafter, he was taken back to the Police Station and kept in Police custody on 17.12.2000. It was alleged that when Ram Singh, petitioner, also a labourer, came to know about the confinement of his fellow-labourer, he went to the Police Station/Police Post in the evening on the same day and he too was arrested by the Police and his name was also entered in the aforesaid FIR 517 dated 17.12.2000, as an accomplice of Hari Narain, petitioner, taking sand from the Saketri Cho. It was alleged that in the said FIR, the name of petitioner No. 1 was also mentioned as supervisor, supervising the theft operation, while sitting in his kothi, located on the Saketri cho bank itself. It was alleged that the alleged kothi of the petitioner, Dr. B. Singh, mentioned in the FIR, in fact is a building of Becon Charitable Trust, gifted by the mother-in-law of petitioner No. 1, trustee. It was alleged that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were produced in the Court of CJM, Panchkula, on 17.12.2000, but they could not be released on bail, as no one was prepared to stand surety for them, on account of the threats given by the Police officials. It was further alleged that subsequently, petitioner No. 1 also came to know that he was also named as accused in the aforesaid FIR. It was alleged that the entire action of the Police in registration of the FIR was an abuse of the process of Court and that the FIR, in question, was liable to be quashed. 3. In the written reply filed by Inspector Rattan Singh, SHO. It was alleged that the entire action of the Police in registration of the FIR was an abuse of the process of Court and that the FIR, in question, was liable to be quashed. 3. In the written reply filed by Inspector Rattan Singh, SHO. Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula, it was admitted that petitioner No. 1 had filed CWP No. 11431 of 2000 in this Court, in respect of the illegal mining and that petitioner No. 1 himself was found involved in committing theft through his labourers on 17.12.2000. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 was found committing theft with the help of his labourers, namely Ram Singh and Hari Narain and that one of them namely Hari Narain was apprehended at the spot, while petitioner No. 1 and another labourer, Ram Singh, ran away from the spot. It was alleged that during interrogation of Hari Narain, who was caught red-handed, it was revealed that petitioner No. 1 had engaged him as a labourer for the construction of house, which was situated near Saketri cho and that petitioner No. 1 ran away from the spot. It was alleged that the other accused namely Ram Singh was also arrested and that during interrogation, he had also stated that he was told by petitioner No. 1 that he will take care of him, if he was arrested. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 having engaged two labourers, had abetted the commission of offence of theft. It was alleged that in fact petitioner No. 1 was standing nearby and was supervising the commission of crime, as the material stolen was to be used by petitioner No. 1 in the construction of his kothi. It was accordingly prayed that the petition be dismissed. 4. I have heard petitioner No. 1 in person and learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submitted before me that as per the FIR, when the Police Officials, along with the photographer, reached the spot, accused-petitioner, Hari Narain, was caught stealing sand from the spot, while his accomplice (accused-petitioner, Ram Singh) ran away from the spot, while supervisor B. Singh (petitioner No. 1) also escaped from the other side. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submitted before me that as per the FIR, when the Police Officials, along with the photographer, reached the spot, accused-petitioner, Hari Narain, was caught stealing sand from the spot, while his accomplice (accused-petitioner, Ram Singh) ran away from the spot, while supervisor B. Singh (petitioner No. 1) also escaped from the other side. It was further submitted that as per the allegations in the FIR, five plastic bags of sand were recovered, besides three empty plastic bags, a kassi and a tokri, from the spot, and the same were taken into possession by the police. It was submitted that even if the accused-petitioners were found to be stealing a few bags of sand from the cho, the alleged offence was of such a petty nature that no criminal proceedings should have been taken and in any case, the FIR, in question, and all subsequent proceedings, taken thereon, should be quashed. Reliance was placed on the provisions of Section 95 of the IPC. Reliance was also placed on the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in the case reported as Bindeshwari Prasad v. Kali Singh, 1978 Criminal Law Journal 187 and by the Patna High Court, in the case reported as Ranjit Singh v. State of Bihar, 1991(1) Crimes 867. 6. There is considerable force in this submission of the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioners. Section 95 of the IPC reads as under :- "95. Act causing slight harm - Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is not to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper, would complain of such harm." 7. In the present case, the allegations against the accused-petitioners are that accused-petitioner No. 3 namely Hari Narain, was found removing five bags of stand from the cho, while accused-petitioner Ram Singh, ran away from the spot, while accused-petitioner No. 1, Dr. B. Singh, was stated to be supervising the theft operation. If a few bags of sand are removed from a cho, in my opinion, the allegations would be of petty nature and trivial and by virtue of Section 95 IPC, it would not be an offence. B. Singh, was stated to be supervising the theft operation. If a few bags of sand are removed from a cho, in my opinion, the allegations would be of petty nature and trivial and by virtue of Section 95 IPC, it would not be an offence. In 1978 Cr.LJ 176 (supra), there were proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C., between the parties and both the parties had applied for copies of the proceedings. The appellant got the copy, which was meant for the complainant, by signing his name and the complainant also got the copy a few days thereafter. The criminal complaint was filed and the Magistrate started inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. It was under those circumstances that it was held that the complaint itself contained allegations of a very petty nature of which hardly any cognizance could have been taken and it would be a trivial act under Section 95, IPC, for which no criminal proceedings could be taken. In 1991(1) Crimes 867 (supra), the only allegation against the petitioner was that even though the customer had purchased the articles worth Rs. 9.51, yet the petitioner had charged a sum of Rs. 10/- from him and no cash memo was issued to the customer. Regarding the non-issuance of cash memo, it was found that under the Control Order, the cash memo was required to be issued only for the sale of articles of the value of more than Rs. 25/-. Regarding the charging of Rs. 10/- from the customer, in respect of the articles worth Rs. 9.51, it was held by the Patna High Court that the law did not take cognizance of trivial offence and that Section 95, IPC, dealt with such matters. Reliance was also placed on the maxim, `Deminimis Non-Curat Lex. In view of the view laid down in the abovementioned authorities and keeping in view the provisions of Section 95, IPC, and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my opinion, the FIR and the further proceedings, taken in pursuance thereof, would be an abuse of the process of Court, especially when the alleged offence against the accused- petitioner, is of a trivial nature. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed and the aforesaid FIR and all subsequent proceedings, taken thereon, are hereby quashed.