Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1056 (PNJ)

Tarlochan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-10-09

VINEY MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") has been filed by the petitioner Tarlochan Singh for quashing of the FIR dated March 10, 1998 which was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by Harbhajan Singh respondent No. 2 and the order dated March 10, 1998 and also the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on October 5, 2000. Certain facts may be noticed : 2. A complaint was filed by Harbhajan Singh was September 23, 1996. The aforesaid complaint was under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. A copy of the complaint has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the petition. During the pendency of the aforesaid complaint, complainant Harbhajan Singh filed a civil suit on January 31, 1998 making identical averments which had been alleged in the complaint. The aforesaid civil suit is stated to be still pending. Even during the pendency of the first complaint, complainant Harbhajan Singh filed another complaint on February 4, 1998. A copy of the aforesaid complaint has been appended as Annexure P-3 with the petition. A perusal of the aforesaid complaint shows that it was almost a verbatim copy of the first complaint. Still not satisfied, making a clear misuse of the process of the criminal Court, the complainant filed a third complaint on March 10, 1998. On the aforesaid date, both the complaints i.e. first complaint subsequently filed on September 23, 1996 and second complaint filed on February 4, 1998 were still pending. It is also noticed by me that the first complaint, the second complaint as well as the third complaint were filed by the complainant through the same counsel. 3. Totally ignoring the factum of the pendency of the first complaint as well as second complaint, the order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class on March 10, 1998 itself which has been appended as Annexure P-5 with the petition. In the aforesaid order the learned Magistrate directed the investigation of the matter after registration of the case as per provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Ultimately, the purpose of the complainant having been achieved he withdrew the first and the second complaint after the aforesaid order. The police registered an FIR and ultimately presented a report (challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C.). 4. The police registered an FIR and ultimately presented a report (challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C.). 4. Since the petitioner felt that the entire criminal proceedings taken against him by the complainant were clearly a misuser of the process of the criminal court, therefore, he also filed an application under Section 245 of the Code before the trial Magistrate for his discharge and dropping of the proceedings against him. Vide order dated March 31, 2000, learned Magistrate agreed with the contention of the accused (the present petitioner) and held that in fact the complainant had misued the process of the criminal court. Accordingly, the petitioner was discharged. The complainant chose to approach the learned Sessions Judge by way of revision petition challenging the aforesaid order dated March 31, 2000 passed by the learned trial Magistrate. Vide order dated October 5, 2000 the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Magistrate and remanded the case back to the learned trial Magistrate for proceeding with the same in accordance with law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 6. In my considered view, the present petition deserves to succeed. The facts which have been noticed by me above are not disputed. Shri Satinder Khanna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has not been able to point out any justification for repeatedly approaching the Court by filing different complaints on the same cause of action. I have gone through the various complaints filed by the complainant. In my opinion when the original complaint filed on September 23, 1996 remained pending for about two years and no summoning order was passed, then the complaint filed a civil suit. Even during the pendency of the first complaint and the aforesaid civil suit, he chose to file second complaint on February 4, 1998. Similar allegations were again made. Since no summoning order was again passed on the aforesaid second complaint as well, therefore, strangely enough, the complainant chose to file third complaint on March 10, 1998. It is apparent that the factum of filing of first complaint dated September 23, 1996 as well as the second complaint dated February 4, 1998 was not mentioned even when the third complaint dated March 10, 1998 was filed. It is apparent that the factum of filing of first complaint dated September 23, 1996 as well as the second complaint dated February 4, 1998 was not mentioned even when the third complaint dated March 10, 1998 was filed. The conduct of the complaint in any case, is deprecable as the complainant has tried to misuse the process of the criminal law. The learned Magistrate while passing order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was never made aware of the fact of the filing of the first complaint as well as the second complaint. 7. I have also gone through the order dated October 5, 2000 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. In my opinion, there has been absolutely no justification for setting aside the order dated March 31, 2000 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Magistrate. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed and the order dated October 5, 2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana is set aside and that passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate I-Class dated March 31, 2000, is hereby restored. Consequently the proceedings against the petitioner shall remain dropped.