Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1073 (PNJ)

Arun Jha v. State Of Haryana

2005-10-06

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2005
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint dated 30.10.2000, Annexure P-3, filed by respondent No. 2 under Sections 323/324/387/452/506 IPC as well as the order dated 6.3.2003, Annexure P-4, passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, vide which the petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Sections 324, 387, 452, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The petitioners are the permanent residents of Bihar. It has been alleged in this petition that they have no concern at all with District Yamuna Nagar and they have never visited Jagadhri in their life, but on the false complaint, filed by respondent No. 2, who is also resident of District Madhubani in the State of Bihar and is a proclaimed offender, the petitioners have been summoned by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, to face trial under Sections 324, 387, 452, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 3. In the complaint, it has been alleged that son of the complainant is owning some land in village Hainthibali, Tehsil Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani (Bihar). Arun Jha, father of petitioner No. 2, had filed a civil suit against the complainant regarding the said property. It has been further alleged that Jogi Jha, one of the relations of Arun Jha, had borrowed Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant on interest and had also executed a pronote in that respect. It has been alleged that the complainant was keeping sale-deed of the aforesaid land and the pronote at Yamuna Nagar. It has been alleged that on 29.9.2000, four accused including the petitioners, armed with deadly weapons, entered into the house of the complainant at Yamuna Nagar, and took away copy of the sale-deed as well as pronote by using force and by beating the complainant. 4. In support of the complaint, respondent No. 2-complaint himself appeared as CW-1 and examined Rohtas as CW-2 and Ramprit as CW-3. Copy of the MLR was also placed on record as Ex. C-1. On the basis of this preliminary evidence, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, summoned the petitioners to face trial under Sections 324, 387, 452, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Copy of the MLR was also placed on record as Ex. C-1. On the basis of this preliminary evidence, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, summoned the petitioners to face trial under Sections 324, 387, 452, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. It has been observed that from the complaint as well as preliminary evidence, it appears that on 29.9.2000, the petitioners armed with a revolver and knife had entered the house of respondent No. 2 and took away the sale-deed and pronote. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire complaint filed by respondent No. 2 is complete misuse and abuse of process of law. The petitioners are permanent residents of the State of Bihar and they never came to Yamuna Nagar or Jagadhri in their life. A totally false complaint has been filed against them at Yamuna Nagar by respondent No. 2 with an oblique motive to harass and falsely implicate the petitioners, because a land dispute is pending between the complainant and the petitioners in the State of Bihar. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No. 2- complainant is a proclaimed offender and he is in the habit of filing false complaints against permanent residents of Bihar to settle his scores. On earlier occasion, he had filed a similar complaint at Yamuna Nagar against some of the residents of his village. Subsequently, the summoned persons filed Crl. Misc. No. 16298-M of 1997 and this Court, vide order dated 2.11.1999, quashed the said complaint. It has been further submitted that in the instant case, before filing the private complaint, respondent No. 2-complainant never reported the matter to the police. Actually, no such incident has ever taken place. Hence, continuation of the complaint in the Court at Jagadhri is complete abuse of the process of law and severe harassment to the petitioners who are not involved in the crime at all. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order. 7. In this case, respondent No. 2-complainant was afforded opportunity to file reply to the present petition, but on 7.9.2005, his counsel stated that he does not want to file reply to the present petition. In view of this, factual averments made in this petition by the petitioners are deemed to be not controverted by respondent No. 2-complainant. 8. 7. In this case, respondent No. 2-complainant was afforded opportunity to file reply to the present petition, but on 7.9.2005, his counsel stated that he does not want to file reply to the present petition. In view of this, factual averments made in this petition by the petitioners are deemed to be not controverted by respondent No. 2-complainant. 8. From the facts stated in the petition, it appears that both the petitioners are permanent residents of the State of Bihar and their civil dispute is already pending with respondent No. 2-complainant, who is a proclaimed offender. Copy of the order in this regard has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2. Earlier, respondent No. 2 filed similar complaint against other residents of the State of Bihar, which has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 2.11.1999, passed in Crl. Misc. No. 16298-M of 1997. Copy of the order has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5. In the light of these facts, I find force in the contention of counsel for the petitioners that respondent No. 2-complainant has filed the instant complaint at Yamuna Nagar with a mala fide object on false facts. In this case, for the alleged occurrence, no report has been made to the police, though respondent No. 2 complainant in his statement stated that he reported the matter to the police, but no document in this regard has been placed on record. Merely on the basis of the MLR, in which only injuries have been shown on the person of respondent No. 2-complainant, and statements of two persons, the petitioners have been summoned by the trial Court. While issuing summons to the petitioners, the trial Court has not applied its mind that the petitioners are permanent residents of the State of Bihar and there was no occasion for them to come to Yamuna Nagar and commit the alleged crime. The Court should not ignore the fact that in these days, filing of complaints on false facts at a distant place for summoning of some persons with mala fide intention and to score other disputes is increasing. In such cases, the trial Court should be more cautious and before issuing the process against such persons, the Court satisfy itself about the genuineness of the complaint and actual happening of the alleged occurrence. In such cases, the trial Court should be more cautious and before issuing the process against such persons, the Court satisfy itself about the genuineness of the complaint and actual happening of the alleged occurrence. Time and again, this Court and the Honble Apex Court has cautioned that the Magistrate should not issue the process mechanically merely on the basis of some statements of the alleged witnesses. 9. The Honble Apex Court in M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 761 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 128, has observed that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to be examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations. In this petition, the petitioners have specifically alleged that they never came to Yamuna Nagar in their life; the alleged occurrence is totally a concoction and the complainant is in habit of concocting such false stories. He is a proclaimed offender. On earlier occasion also, similar complaint filed by him has been quashed by this Court. In this petition, it has also been stated that a civil dispute is going on between the petitioners and the complainant and in order to put pressure upon the petitioners, the instant false complaint has been filed at Yamuna Nagar. These facts have not been controverted by respondent No. 2-complainant by way of filing reply. In these circumstances, the aforesaid factual position, which has been asserted in the petition, prima facie appears to be correct. These facts have not been controverted by respondent No. 2-complainant by way of filing reply. In these circumstances, the aforesaid factual position, which has been asserted in the petition, prima facie appears to be correct. If these facts are correct, then the impugned complaint filed by the complainant and the summoning order are nothing but complete abuse of process of law. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and the complaint dated 30.10.2000, Annexure P-3, and the summoning order dated 6.3.2003, Annexure P- 4, are quashed.