Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2930 (PNJ)

Atma Singh v. Balwinder Kaur

2010-10-25

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2010
Judgment Nirmaljit Kaur, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 52 dated 17.10.2006 under Sections 452/447/398/506 IPC titled as Balwinder Kaur v. Atma Singh and others pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and to quash all the subsequent proceedings including summoning order dated 29.03.2008 arising out of the said complaint. 2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties was of civil in nature and the civil dispute was pending when the complaint was filed. It was further contended that the civil suit was decided in favour of the petitioners by the trial Court vide judgment dated 21.12.2009. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued. 3. Notice issued to the respondent was received back duly served. However, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for today for arguments. Today also, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. Thus, the present petition has not been contested by the complainant. 4. The allegations, as detailed in para 2 of the complaint, are as under :- "That at about 4.30 PM on 5.8.06, all the above said accused, accompanied by 35-40 other persons, forcibly entered the house of the complainant. They all came in a tractor trolley which was driven by accused No. 6 Harjinder Singh son of Balwant Singh. Accused No. 1 who was armed with "Barsha" gave lalkara saying that the complainant and her family should be finished today and she be taught a lesson for taking possession on our land. At that time, besides the complainant, her two sons Harprem Singh and Hardip Singh and their families were present. They tried to stop the accused, but could not due to larger number of accused. Accused Atma Singh and Ajmer Singh pushed both the sons of the complainant on the ground than all accused started beating them with legs and fists. When the complainant and her family tried to intervene, then accused No. 3 to 6 slapped them. The accused also started destroying the house hold things with their arms. We raised alarm saying "Mar Ditta Mar Ditta" "save us". When the complainant and her family tried to intervene, then accused No. 3 to 6 slapped them. The accused also started destroying the house hold things with their arms. We raised alarm saying "Mar Ditta Mar Ditta" "save us". On hearing, Pal Singh alias Kala son of Mehar Singh caste Majahbi Sikh, Mukhtiar Singh son of Nazar Singh, Swaran Singh son of Narjan Singh and Jagir Singh son of Pritam Singh and Karnail Singh son of Beera Singh reached the spot. They witnessed the whole incident. They tried to save us from the accused. The accused asked Pal Singh alias Kala son of Mehar Singh to leave the place and also abused him by the Fname of his caste. While leaving, the accused cut two small trees of the complainant and took away in the trolley besides bricks laying in the yard for construction. They also threatened us with dire consequences." 5. Thus, the main allegation is that the present petitioners entered the house of the complainant and beat them with legs and fists. 6. The complaint had led preliminary evidence and examined herself as CW1 and Karnail Singh as CW2 and Harprem Singh as CW3. On the basis of the said evidence, the petitioners were summoned to face trial under Sections 323/447/452/506 IPC. 7. Attention has been invited to the judgment dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Baba Bakala. The said suit was filed by the respondent-complainant Balwinder Kaur praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering to her peaceful possession over the plot Haveli shown as red in the site plan attached and bounded as East Home of the plaintiff West Property of Baba Lkha, north Gali and South Pond situated in the area of village Dashmesh Nagar, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar. As per the averment in the suit, Puran Singh, the husband of the respondent-complainant was in possession of double storey house and plot/Haveli as detailed in the said head note. In the FIR, the petitioners are stated to have forcibly entered the house of the complainant. The said house is the same as subject matter of civil dispute. However, the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. In the FIR, the petitioners are stated to have forcibly entered the house of the complainant. The said house is the same as subject matter of civil dispute. However, the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Baba Bakala vide order dated 21.12.2009 dismissed the suit by holding as under :- "From the perusal of the above said evidence of the plaintiff and the defendants and cross examination of the PWs, the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the true facts from the court on the ground that the site plan Ex.P1 is not correct as per the spot. The electricity and telephone bills Ex-P2 to Ex-P5 are not of the property in dispute. Even the photographs Ex-P8 to Ex-P10 are also of not the property in dispute. In this way the plaintiff could not establish her possession over the property in dispute. As such issue No. 1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants and issue No. 4 is decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff." 8. It is stated that no appeal has been filed against the said judgment. Thus, in view of the above order passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Baba Bakala holding that the complainant is not in possession of the place/house, where the incident took place, the main allegation and the main offence under Section 452 IPC is not made out against the present petitioners. Once, the main offence is not made out on account of the fact that story put by the complainant is disbelieved, the petitioners cannot be held guilty of the remaining offences which are an outcome of the main offence. The entire version has become improbable. Thus, the very chances of the conviction become oblique and no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to continue. It is nothing but the misuse of process of law. The courts cannot be used for any oblique purpose or for the purpose of twisting the arm to settle their own civil dispute. Moreover, the respondent-complainant has not come forward to contest the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition has gone uncontested. 9. It is nothing but the misuse of process of law. The courts cannot be used for any oblique purpose or for the purpose of twisting the arm to settle their own civil dispute. Moreover, the respondent-complainant has not come forward to contest the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition has gone uncontested. 9. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed and Criminal Complaint No. 52 dated 17.10.2006 under Sections 452/447/398/506 IPC titled as Balwinder Kaur v. Atma Singh and others pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings including summoning order dated 29.03.2008 arising out of the said complaint are, hereby, quashed.