Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 951 (PNJ)

Pawan Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2002-09-19

VINEY MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner-Pawan Kumar, for quashing the order dated October 23, 1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangrur. Certain facts may be noticed. 2. The petitioner Pawan Kumar is the complainant. He got registered as FIR No. 255 dated December 23, 1997 under Sections 452/427/429/506 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Sangrur against Joginder Singh and Nachattar Singh. The police investigated the aforesaid FIR. A challan was presented against Joginder Singh and Nachattar Singh. A charge was also framed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class against the aforesaid two persons Joginder Singh and Nachattar Singh. 3. Thereafter, the police conducted further investigation in the matter and it is stated that during the course of investigation, it was found that the aforesaid accused Joginder Singh and Nachattar Singh are innocent. It is also stated that the Investigating Officer found that the complaint made by Pawan Kumar was false. Thus, subsequently a supplementary challan under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was presented against Pawan Kumar under Sections 182/211 IPC. It was mentioned in the supplementary challan that proceedings be initiated against Pawan Kumar under the aforesaid provisions. 4. The present petitioner Pawan Kumar filed an application before the Learned Trial Magistrate to discharge him. A plea was taken by him that since the police had submitted the earlier challan against Joginder Singh and Nachattar Singh and the learned trial Magistrate in that proceedings had taken the cognizance and charge had also been framed against the aforesaid accused persons, then a supplementary challan under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. should not have been presented against the complainant Pawan Kumar on the basis that the FIR lodged by him was false. It was also pleaded by the present petitioner that once the charge had been framed against Joginder Singh and Nachattar Singh, then there was no provision to discharge the aforesaid accused. 5. Vide order dated October 23, 1999, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangrur dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner. While dismissing the aforesaid application, the learned trial Magistrate observed that since the supplementary challan filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was independent of the earlier challan filed against Joginder Singh and Nachattar Singh, therefore, both the trials can continue simultaneously. 6. While dismissing the aforesaid application, the learned trial Magistrate observed that since the supplementary challan filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was independent of the earlier challan filed against Joginder Singh and Nachattar Singh, therefore, both the trials can continue simultaneously. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated October 23, 1999 and has approached this Court through the present petition. 7. I have heard Sh. H.N.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Sandeep Jain, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. In my considered opinion, the order dated October 23, 1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangrur, is wholly unsustainable under the law and is liable to be quashed. 8. Admittedly, upon the registration of the FIR at the instance of the present petitioner Pawan Kumar against Joginder Singh and Nachhatar Singh, the police had investigated the matter. After the aforesaid investigation, a challan was presented against the aforesaid two persons. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur has already taken cognizance and has framed a charge against the aforesaid two persons namely Joginder Singh and Nachattar Singh. After the framing of charge, the police had absolutely no authority to take up a stand that the aforesaid two persons Joginder Singh and Nachattar Singh were innocent and had been falsely been framed in the aforesaid offence. At the best recourse could be taken to the provisions of Section 321 of Cr.P.C., if the situation so warranted. By necessary corollary it could not be alleged by the prosecution/investigating agency at this stage that Pawan Kumar had given a false information to the police upon which FIR in question against Joginder Singh and Nachattar Singh had been lodged. 9. The learned trial Magistrate has observed that since the cognizance of both the cases had already been taken and since the report under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was independent of the earlier challan, therefore, both the trials would continue independently and the guilt of the each of the accused would be adjudged after the conclusion of the evidence in each of the case. In my considered opinion, this approach of the learned Judicial Magistrate is wholly contrary to the law. In my considered opinion, this approach of the learned Judicial Magistrate is wholly contrary to the law. The trial Magistrate has not appreciated that offence under Sections 182/211 IPC cannot be stated to have been committed unless and until a positive findings is returned by the Court that the proceedings were initiated falsely by the complainant. 10. In fact in the case of Banta Singh v. State of Haryana, 1995(3) RCR 133, this Court had held "it is apparent that if the case under Section 182, Indian Penal Code is allowed to proceed, a decision in the said case would tantamount to prejudging the complaint filed by the petitioner. The prosecution of the petitioner under Section 182, Indian Penal Code during the pendency of his complaint, is evidently an abuse to the process of the Court, and it would be proper to secure the ends of justice, to quash these proceedings. It is ordered accordingly." A similar view was taken again in the case of Ajit Singh Lambardar v. State of Punjab, 1997(1) RCR 70. 11. In these circumstances, the present petition is allowed and the order dated October 23, 1999 passed by the judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangrur is hereby quashed. 12. Before parting with this judgment, I make it clear that it would always be open to the prosecution or the trial magistrate to initiate proceedings against the complainant Pawan Kumar, if and when the proceedings against Joginder Singh and Nachattar Singh are ultimately found to have been falsely initiated. This order of mine shall not in any way come in the way of launching the aforesaid proceedings at that stage.