Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 22 (PNJ)

Bhagwan Singh v. Satnam Singh

2002-01-04

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

body2002
Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Civil Procedure for quashing the complaint, Annexure P1, dated 21.12.1990. 2. As per the allegations in the complaint, 19 persons, all belonging to village Dhandi Khurd, Tehsil Fazilka, trespassed into the land belonging to the complainant and damaged the crop. The complainant alleged that all of them may be ordered to be tried and punished accordingly. 3. A persual of the complaint, Annexure P1, shows that no specific role has been attributed to any of the 19 persons mentioned in the complaint. Moreover, before filing of the complaint on 21.12.1990, the petitioners had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain 11 defendants from dispossessing them. It is pertinent to note that 11 persons arrayed as defendants in the suit for permanent injunction, are different than those mentioned in the present case. Only one person, namely, Bhagwan Singh son of Ajit Singh is common. This, itself, clearly shows that the complainant himself is not sure as to which are the persons, who are trying to interfere in his possession as so many persons from his village have been roped in. In State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) RCR(Crl.) 383 : AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 the Honble Apex Court has held that the High Court, in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It has been held that : "(i) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report for the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (ii) ............................................. (iii) ........................................... (iv) ............................................. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent can never reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) ............................................. (vii) 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." 4. (vi) ............................................. (vii) 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." 4. In the present case, no details with regard to any overt act by any of the petitioners-accused has been given in the complaint. The allegations are general against all the persons, which in taken on their face value, cannot be sustained. Moreover, the Civil Courts have held that "the plaintiff is not in possession of the land". Thus, the respondent-complainant has tried to show that he is in possession, whereas the findings of the Court are against him. 5. A persual of the complaint as well as the orders of the Civil Courts clearly shows that complainant Satnam Singh has filed a false complaint against the petitioners. He has not even chosen to put in appearance despite being served nor he has filed any written statement. There are no specific allegations against any of the petitioners. Moreover, more than 11 years have elapsed since the filing of the complaint, no useful purpose would be served in sending the 19 petitioners to face the trial, especially in view of the fact that no specific allegations have been levelled against any of the petitioners. 6. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, I accept this petition and quash the complaint, Annexure P1, dated 21.12.1990 and the consequential proceedings i.e. the summoning order, Annexure P5, dated 4.9.1991, the same being an abuse of process of law.Petition allowed.