Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 982 (PNJ)

Palwinder Raj Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-09-25

NIRMAL SINGH

body2002
Judgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. This is a petition section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint dated 9.7.1998 (Annexure P-7) under Sections 391, 506, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. 2. Pargat Singh, respondent No. 2 took loan of Rs. 75,000/- from the petitioner and also executed the loan documents. The loan was required to be repaid in monthly instalments of Rs. 6300/- each. Respondent No. 2 had repaid Rs. 42,400/- and the balance amount was to be repaid. Petitioner sent various notices to respondent No. 2 for making payment of remaining amount of loan but he did not give reply to those notices. 3. On 1.7.1998, when the respondent No. 2 was sitting in the mechanical workshop of Shri Mehal Singh, mechanic near Chittwal Filling Station, G.T. Road, Amritsar and his truck was being repaired, petitioner, armed with revolver alongwith other persons armed with double barrel gun and danda, sotta etc. forcibly entered the workshop. They abused the respondent and threatened to kill him and took away the truck of the respondent. At that time, Rs. 45,000/- were lying in the small box of the truck. Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. Petitioner and other accused were summoned vide order dated 31.8.1998. They appeared before the trial Court and filed application for dropping the proceedings. The said application was dismissed on 2.12.1999. The petitioner Palwinder Raj Singh has approached this Court on 29.3.2001 for quashing of the complaint and the subsequent proceedings. 4. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that this petition is to be dismissed on the score that order dated 2.12.1999 (copy at Annexure P-9) is a revisable order. When an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to impugn the order, then petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the case titled Balabhadra Dash and another v. State of Orissa and others 1991 Crl. L.J. 2457 in which it has been held as under :- "Inherent power is wide in nature and Section 482 in Cr.P.C. having been made to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court, such power is to be exercised with great restraint. L.J. 2457 in which it has been held as under :- "Inherent power is wide in nature and Section 482 in Cr.P.C. having been made to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court, such power is to be exercised with great restraint. Wider would be the power, greater should be the restraint. Ordinarily, trial of an accused in a criminal prosecution is to be concluded under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and High Court would be reluctant to conclude the same at an interim stage. Therefore, prayer for quashing charge or taking cognizance ought not to be entertained in a routine manner and unless High Court is satisfied that there is abuse of process of Court or ends of justice demand it, such prayers ought not to be entertained. Even if, such prayers are entertained, all endeavours should be made to examined if the abuse of powers of Court can be eradicated without bringing the proceeding to an end in the midway. Where accused would be put to such inconvenient position that subsequent examination of these questions would materially affect him which would be irreparable in nature, High Court can for reasons to be recorded in that regard, examined the materials to interfere with the continuance of trial. Therefore, where all the accused persons had an opportunity to advance submissions before the Magistrate that materials on record do not call for framing of charge against them, High Court declined exercise of inherent powers for quashing cognizance. In matters where same relief can be given by a subordinate authority normally higher authority should not exercise its powers to give same relief." 5. In Mohan Lal and another v. State, 1974 Crl.L.J. 1407 it has been held as under :- "The inherent power of the High Court under that provision, to my mind, cannot be pressed in aid for the purposes of indirectly undoing or modifying an order which is appealable or revisable and has become final because no appeal or revision was filed against it or having been filed were dismissed thus giving finality to the same. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 17th January, 1969 and the appellate order therefrom are not in challenge in these proceedings." 6. This petition cannot be entertained on other score also that application for dropping the proceedings was dismissed on 2.12.1999. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 17th January, 1969 and the appellate order therefrom are not in challenge in these proceedings." 6. This petition cannot be entertained on other score also that application for dropping the proceedings was dismissed on 2.12.1999. Petitioner has filed this petition after the expiry of about 1 year and three months. No doubt, for filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. no limitation has been prescribed but it does not mean that a party can file a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. wherever it likes. However, a petition should have been filed within a reasonable period. The period of 90 days which is at par with a revision should be treated as a reasonable period and if any petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed beyond the period of 90 days, the petitioner should explain the delay. 7. In the instant case, no plausible explanation has been given for not filing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. within a reasonable period nor any application for condonation of delay has been filed. Even otherwise, there are disputed facts in this petition. As per the petitioner, respondent has voluntarily given him the custody of the truck whereas the version of the respondent is that the petitioner has forcibly taken the truck. Such questions cannot be decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the pleas before the trial Court which have been taken in this petition.