Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1378 (PNJ)

Amrik Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-04-06

AJAI LAMBA

body2010
Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing of criminal complaint dated 30.5.2003 (Annexure P2) entitled Kartar Singh v. Amrik Singh and others, under Sections 323, 506, Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(l)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti, District Amritsar. Challenge is also to summoning order dated 2.7.2004 (Annexure P3). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Sukhdev Singh (petitioner No.3) is running a shop of scooter mechanic under the tenancy of Narinder Singh and Gurnam Singh, sons of Mohinder Singh. Petitioner No.l happens to be father of Sukhdev Singh. Petitioner Nos. 2 is real brother of Sukhdev Singh. Petitioners No.4 and 5 are sons of brother-in-law of father of Sukhdev Singh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that on account of a tenancy dispute between the landowner and petitioner No.3 tenant, petitioner No.3 and his relatives have been implicated at the instance of sweeper employed by Gurnam Singh. So as to substantiate the contention that the landlord and petitioner No. 3 have strained relations and have been litigating, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the court towards Annexure P1, which is a copy of order passed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar, on 5.8.2003. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that it would be a matter of evidence for the trial court to see whether the complaint has been filed at the instigation of the employer of respondent No. 2 or otherwise. 5. I have considered the rival contentions. 6. A perusal of the order (Annexure P1) shows that petitioner No.3 filed the appeal against order dated 16.4.2003, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti, whereby the injunction application filed by petitioner No.3 was dismissed. The appellate court, vide order (Annexure P1), accepted the appeal and has held that the landlords had no right to dispossess petitioner No.3 from the suit property illegally and forcibly or demolish any part thereof till the final disposal of the suit. 7. The appellate court, vide order (Annexure P1), accepted the appeal and has held that the landlords had no right to dispossess petitioner No.3 from the suit property illegally and forcibly or demolish any part thereof till the final disposal of the suit. 7. A perusal of the criminal complaint (Annexure P2) indicates that respondent No.2 Kartar Singh filed the complaint on the ground that he belongs to Mazbi Sikh community and used to sweep "Aharat" (coutryard) of Gurnam Singh son of Mohinder Singh, whereupon he was abused in the name of his caste by the petitioners. The complainant alleges that the petitioners, with common intention, while using the offending words, said that the complainant had been stopped from sweeping with the broom every day because mud went inside the house. On an objection being raised by the complainant, he was given slaps and threatened that in case the complainant cleaned the courtyard again, he would be killed. 8. The summoning order has been passed, considering the contents of the complaint and the preliminary evidence led in the same terms. 9. In para 7 of the petition, another interesting fact has been brought out by the petitioners viz. that respondent No.2 complainant is in the habit of filing false and frivolous complaints against people so as to extract money. Respondent No.2 had filed a complaint against Charan Singh and Kala Singh sons of Shingara Singh, Smt. Jeet Kaur wife of Shingara Singh and Shingara Singh son of Lachman Singh. Subsequently, he withdrew the complaint on accepting Rs.7,000. The receipt has been placed on record as Annexure P4. 10. Having considered the allegations made in the complaint, in the context of the attending facts and circumstances noticed above, I am of the considered opinion that the complaint has been filed only so as to harass the petitioners, which amounts to abuse of process of court and abuse of process of law. 11. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been framed for protection of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The special legislation, however, has been abused, in the present case. The very allegation made in para 4 of the complaint is found to be impossible. No allegation could be made against the sweeper to the effect that he had come to dirty the floor. 12. The special legislation, however, has been abused, in the present case. The very allegation made in para 4 of the complaint is found to be impossible. No allegation could be made against the sweeper to the effect that he had come to dirty the floor. 12. The fact that the complainant is an employee of Gurnam Singh cannot be disputed because the fact finds mention the complaint itself. Strained relations between Gurnam Singh and petitioner No.3 Sukhdev Singh are brought out from the order (Annexure P1), to which reference has been made hereinabove. The conduct of respondent No.2 is also reflected from the compromise (Annexure P4) wherein he received a sum of Rs.7,000 given by the sons of Shingara Singh. 13. The circumstances invite the conclusion that the complaint has been filed so as to harass the petitioners at the instigation of Gurnam Singh, the employer of respondent No.2 complainant so as to settle the tenancy dispute with petitioner No.3,I find that continuance of proceedings shall be an abuse of process of court. 14. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. 15. Criminal complaint dated 30.5.2003 (Annexure P2) entitled Kartar Singh v. Amrik Singh and Ors., under Section 323, 506 IPC, and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pending in the court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patti, District Amritsar, summoning order dated 2.7.2004 (Annexure P3) and subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed.