Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1267 (PNJ)

Pushpinder Singh v. Mahla Singh

2001-11-09

G.S.SINGHVI

body2001
Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing complaint dated 16.2.1991 filed by Shri Mahla Singh son of Bhagwan Singh (respondent No.l) and order dated 7.10.1993 passd by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda for summoning the petitioners in connection with the offence allegedly committed by them under Section 304-B and 306 of Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). 2. A perusal of the record shows that Perminder Kaur @ Balwinder Kaur was married to petitioner No. 1 - Pushpinder Singh son of Makhan Singh on 5.3.1989. She died in the Civil Hospital Bathinda on 10.7.1990. On the basis of statement made by the brother, Shri Paramjit Singh, on 11.7.1990 First Information Report No. 13 dated 11.7.1990 was recorded of Police Station Thermal Plant, Bathinda for offence under Section 304-B of the IPC. After investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against petitioner No.1 for commission of offence under Section 304-B IPC. By an order dated 19.11.1990, the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda framed charge against petitioner No. 1. He challenged that order by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14686-B of 1990. A learned Single Judge allowed that petition on 26.5.1992 and quashed the proceedings subject to the following rider : "Nothing said or observed above would, however, debar the learned trial Court from considering desirability of altering/amending the charge to Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code or prejudice the proceedings allegedly initiated by the complainant party against the accused-petitioner or allegedly delinquent police officials on their complaints filed against them." In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 filed complaint dated 16.2.1991 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda alleging that the petitioners had committed offence under Sections 304-B/306, 498/34, I.P.C. After recording the evidence of complainant as PW-1, Niranjan Singh, as PW-2, Paramjit Singh as PW-3. Bikkar Singh as PW-4 and Dr. Charanjit Garg as PW-5, the learned Judicial Magistrate passed order dated 7.10.1993 summoning the petitioners, who filed the present petition for quashing the complaint and summoning order. 3. While admitting the petition on 3.12.1993, this Court stayed the proceedings pending before the trial Court. Bikkar Singh as PW-4 and Dr. Charanjit Garg as PW-5, the learned Judicial Magistrate passed order dated 7.10.1993 summoning the petitioners, who filed the present petition for quashing the complaint and summoning order. 3. While admitting the petition on 3.12.1993, this Court stayed the proceedings pending before the trial Court. However, on an application filed by respondent No.1 for vacation of the ex parte interim order, which was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14588 of 1994, the ad-interim order was modified on 14.11.1994 in the following terms : "The proceedings before the trial Court may go on but the final order be not passed till further orders." At the hearing, learned counsel for respondent No.1 made a statement that in the light of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 26.5.1992 and the modified interim order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14588 of 1994, the trial Court converted the offence mentioned in First Information Report from Section 304-B to Section 306 of the IPC and the entire evidence has been recorded. 4 Shri J.S. Mann, counsel for the petitioners argued that the belated complaint filed by respondent No. 1 should be treated as an abuse of the process of the Court intended to harass the petitioners and, therefore, the complaint as well as order dated 7.10.1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda should be quashed. He further argued that in view of order dated 26.5.1992, learned Judicial Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 after more han 7 months of the death of Parminder Kaur. Learned counsel extensively read out the contents of the First Information Report dated 11.7.1990, complaint dated 16.2.1991 filed by respondent No.1 and order dated 26.5.1992 to show that the story of the harassment allegedly caused to the deceased by the petitioners was concocted by respondent No.1 after he found that the complaint made by the brother of the deceased was laconic and the same could not have resulted in conviction even of petitioner No.l. Learned counsel submitted that Shri Paramjit Singh was serving as a Constable in the Police Department and, therefore, it cannot be believed that he did not know the possibility of prosecution case being dismissed on account of lack of particulars of the offence enumerated in Section 304-B of IPC. He then argued that the liberty given by the learned Single Judge while disposing of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14686-M of 1990 should not be allowed to be misused for harassing the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.l submitted that the application of the petitioners should be dismissed in view of the developments which have taken place during its pendency. lie pointed out that the entire prosecution and defence evidence has already been recorded and submitted that quashing of the proceedings at this stage would result in mis-carriage of justice. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court would have finally decided the case but due to interim order passed by the Court on 3.12.1993 and 14.11,1994, it could not do so. 6. We have given serious thought to the respective arguments. We may have dilated on the arguments of Shri Mann in detail and examined the issue as to whether the complaint filed by respondent No.l can be treated as an abuse of the process of the Court, but keeping in view the fact that while allowing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14686-M of 1990, the learned Single Judge had given liberty to the trial Court to alter/amend the charge from Section 304-B to Section 306 of the IPC and had also made it clear that the proceedings initiated on the complaint shall not be prejudiced by quashing of order of the trial Court and the fact that entire evidence has been recorded, I do not consider it just and proper to deprive the learned trial Court of an opportunity to finally decide the case. Once the evidence has been recorded, the petitioners cannot invoke the plea of prejudice or harassment and make the same as a ground for quashing the proceedings pending before the trial Court. 7. For the reasons, mentioned above, the petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not prejudicially affect adjudication of the case pending before the trial Court.