Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 683 (PNJ)

Rajbala v. State Of Haryana

2001-07-13

NIRMAL SINGH

body2001
Judgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 464 dated 5.10.2000 in case under Sections 302/323/148/149/212/216 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Karnal, qua the petitioner. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the FIR, on the following grounds :- "(i) That there is no allegation in the F.I.R. against the present petitioner. The allegations are against 4 persons namely Subhash son of Jaipal, Subhash son of Ram Chander, Suresh @ Mali son of Puran Chand and one Birbal son of Amrit. There is no allegation against the present petitioner that she has either colluded with the accused or has any conspiracy in murder. (ii) That from the bare perusal of the F.I.R. no ingredient of Sections 323/302/148/149/213/216 I.P.C. is made out against the present petitioner. (iii) That the petitioner was not knowing whereabout of Subhash and she has been falsely implicated being the mother of Subhash. The deponent was not knowing about the Subhash. He was not coming to the house and whereabout of his was not known. (iv) That the deponent has never harbour or conceal anyone to avoid her from legal custody. The deponent has been implicated with a mala fide intention. (v) That the deponent has never allowed anyone to escape from custody or she has not helped anyone to avoid the arrest rather she has been falsely implicated with mala fide intention because she has approached to Superintendent of Police against Gulzar Singh, CIA Inspector for picking up father-in-law of Subhash and Anita wife of Subhash. (vi) That the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed because the ingredients of Section 212/216 I.P.C. is not made out against the present deponent nor ingredients of Section 302 I.P.C is made out. If the F.I.R. is mala fide intention then the same should be quashed." 3. The FIR was registered in this case on the statement of Angrez Singh @ Geju son of Mangal Singh, caste Jat Sikh, resident of Dera Guru Nanakpur, Pingli Road. The FIR reads as under :- "Statement of Angrez Singh @ Geju son of Mangal Singh, Caste Jat Sikh resident of Dera Guru Nanakpur, Pingli Road, age 32 years stated that I am resident of above noted address and labour work. The FIR reads as under :- "Statement of Angrez Singh @ Geju son of Mangal Singh, Caste Jat Sikh resident of Dera Guru Nanakpur, Pingli Road, age 32 years stated that I am resident of above noted address and labour work. On 4.10.2000 in the night at about 12.00 p.m. I was coming from my sister house Harbhajan Kaur resident of Jyoti Nagar, Karnal. I was going to my Dehra. When I reached to Pingli road, I have seen that in front of near Bodh Raj Hotel, 4 persons Subhash son of Ram Chander caste Jat resident of Narukheri at present Dehra Bhola Raqba Pingli, Subhash son of Jaipal caste Jat resident of Narukheri, Suresh @ Mali son of Puran Chand caste Jat resident of Narukheri and one more person black colour and teeth of whom were protruding out. All the 4 were beating Buta Singh son of Mohinder Singh, Jat Sikh R/o Dera Guru Nanak, Pingli Road, Karnal. All where in drink mood. I asked them why are you beating a poor person. They started me beating also. That time Buta Singh fell on the road. Subhash son of Jaipal who is working in a Railway Police as a constable has inflicted iron rod blow many times on my head. Subhash son of Ram Chander and Suresh have also given below on my face and legs. The fourth persons whose name I do not know but I recognised when he comes. He has also inflicted lathi blow. I cried save save. In the meantime, Kamaljit Singh son of Amar Singh, Jat Sikh R/o Dera Guru Nanakpura, Gurmeet Singh son of Sh. Jasmeer Singh, Jat Singh resident of Colony, Karnal. Vinder Singh son of Sheesha Singh Jat Sikh resident of Pingli Road, Karnal has got me free from them. All the four have ran away with their weapon on 2 motorcycles. One was Suzuki and other was Hero Honda. They went towards Pingli. After there going, Buta Singh has died. The blood was coming out from Head and Neck. Gurmeet Singh and Nerpal Singh brought me to Civil Hospital and got me admitted." 4. Mr. R.S. Mamli, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner have been initiated under Sections 212 and 216 IPC with the mala fide intention of the Investigating Officer. The blood was coming out from Head and Neck. Gurmeet Singh and Nerpal Singh brought me to Civil Hospital and got me admitted." 4. Mr. R.S. Mamli, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner have been initiated under Sections 212 and 216 IPC with the mala fide intention of the Investigating Officer. He further submitted that husband of the petitioner made various applications to the Director General of Police, Haryana and Home Minister, Haryana and Human Rights Commission that the entire family of the petitioner has been illegally detained. He further submitted that when the husband of the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the High Court, on coming to know this fact, the Investigating Officer immediately arrested the petitioner under Sections 212 and 216 IPC to show that she has been legally detained. He also submitted that there is no evidence on the record that the petitioner was aware that her son has committed an offence. There is no evidence collected by the prosecution that the petitioner has harboured and concealed her son. He submitted that from the statements of Gurcharan Singh and Gurbax Singh, the offence of harbouring under Sections 212 and 216 IPC is not made out. 5. Mr. S.S. Brar, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana failed to rebut the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties. Sections 212 and 216 I.P.C. read as under :- "212. Harbouring offender. - Whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment; if a capital offence. Sections 212 and 216 I.P.C. read as under :- "212. Harbouring offender. - Whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment; if a capital offence. - shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment - and if the offence is punishable with (imprisonment for life), or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, and not to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one- fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. ["Offence" in this section includes any act committed at any place out of (India), which, if committed in (India), would be punishable under any of the following Sections namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460; and every such act shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be punished as if the accused person had been guilty of it in (India)]. Exception. - This provision shall not extend to any case in which the harbour or concealment is by the husband or wife of the offender. 216. Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered. Exception. - This provision shall not extend to any case in which the harbour or concealment is by the husband or wife of the offender. 216. Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered. - Whenever any person convicted of or charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes from such custody, or whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant, orders a certain person to be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of such escape or order for apprehension, harbours or conceals that person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended, shall be punished in the manner following, that is to say, [if a capital offence] if the offence for which the person was in custody or is ordered to be apprehended is punishable with death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; [if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment] if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and not to ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for such offence, or with fine, or with both, "Offence" in this section includes also any act or omission of which a person is alleged to have been guilty out of India, which, if he had been guilty of it in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India, and every such act or omission shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had been guilty of it in India. Exception. Exception. - This provision does not extend to case in which the harbour or concealment is by the husband or wife of the person to be apprehended." The Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) RCR(Crl.) 383 : AIR 1992 SC 604 had laid down guide-lines where High Court can exercise powers under Section 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which read as under :- "(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Where allegations in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of FIR was not justified." 7 A perusal of the FIR shows that the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned as an accused. Prosecution has recorded the statements of Gurbachan Singh and Gurcharan Singh on 1.11.2000 that petitioner has been harbouring her son. In the statement it is nowhere mentioned where the petitioner has harboured her son. 8. In the reply filed by the State, for the first time it came that the petitioner has harboured her son in the Dera of Ram Chander. Petitioners husband moved an application before the Director General of Police, Haryana for release of the family members as they have been illegally detained by the police since 25.10.2000. Representations were also sent to the Prime Minister and other higher authorities. This fact has not been denied by the State that husband of the petitioner has not filed a representation before the Director General of Police. The petitioner has averred that she was apprehended by the police so husband of the petitioner filed habeas corpus petition in the High Court, after that the police arrested her on 1.11.2000 under Sections 212 and 216 IPC. In the police file, except the statements of Gurbachan Singh and Gurcharan Singh, there is no evidence of harbouring against the petitioner. There is also no evidence on the record collected by the prosecution that it was in the knowledge of the petitioner that her son has committed an offence. Even if the son after committing an offence came to the house of the petitioner and it is not in the knowledge of the petitioner that her son has committed an offence even then no offence is made out against the petitioner. 9. Even if the son after committing an offence came to the house of the petitioner and it is not in the knowledge of the petitioner that her son has committed an offence even then no offence is made out against the petitioner. 9. From the averments made in the petition and perusal of the record shows that the Investigating Officer seems to have (been) annoyed with the petitioner on the ground that the husband of the petitioner moved an application before the Director General of Police that the entire family of the petitioner has been illegally detained. The application was made on 25.10.2000 and subsequently on 1.11.2000, the statements of Gurbachan Singh and Gurcharan Singh have been purposely recorded to show that the petitioner has harboured her son. Even if these statement are taken as it is, it is not evident that case is made out against the petitioner. It is settled proposition of law that the High Court can exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly and in a rarest of rare case to prevent the misuse of process of law. From the facts, it is a fit case where this Court is to intervene. If the proceedings are allowed to continue qua the petitioner it amounts to misuse of process of law. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is accepted. The proceedings qua the petitioner in FIR No. 464 dated 5.10.2000 registered at Police Station, Sadar, Karnal, are quashed.