Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 281 (PNJ)

Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-02-17

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Tersenessly, the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that, petitioner-Ranjit Singh was the owner of Truck/Trailor bearing registration No. HR-56-5011 (for brevity “the offending vehicle”) and Gurpreet Singh son of Jugraj Singh, main accused was its driver at the relevant time. On 16.10.2006, complainant-Head Constable Krishan Kumar (respondent No.2) (for short “the complainant”) and Head Constable Angrej Singh (deceased) were going to their houses on their respective scooters. As soon as, at about 10.00 P.M., they reached near main Bijli Ghar, GT road, Moga, in the meantime, the offending vehicle was stated to have come from the back side at a high speed, rammed into the scooter of HC Angrej Singh and caused the accident, in which, he sustained the injuries. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that, the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the main accused-Gurpreet Singh, while driving the offending vehicle owned by the petitioner, in which, HC Angrej Singh had succumbed to his injuries. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement(Annexure P-1) of the complainant, the present case was registered against the main accused-Gurpreet Singh, vide FIR No. 313 dated 17.10.2006 (Annexure P-2), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Subsequently, the petitioner(owner) was arrayed as an accused for abetment of the commission of the crime punishable under Section 109 IPC by the police of Police Station, City Moga, in the manner depicted hereinabove. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan/final police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate(for short “the CJM”) framed the charges against the main accused- Gurpreet Singh under Section 279 and 304-A IPC and the petitioner was also charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 109 IPC, by means of impugned order dated 25.03.2008(Annexure P4). 4. 4. The petitioner-Ranjit Singh(owner) did not feel satisfied with the initiation of criminal prosecution against him and preferred the present petition, to challenge the impugned FIR(Annexure P-2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that he has been falsely implicated by the police, being the owner of the offending vehicle only with the vague allegation that he has asked the main accused-Gurpreet Singh, to drive the offending vehicle without a valid driving licence. According to the petitioner, he had employed Gurpreet Singh, as a driver after verification and he was holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. It was claimed that the bare reading of the FIR does not constitute/disclose any offence whatsoever under Section 109 IPC and he has been falsely implicated by the police vexatiously and maliciously, in order to take the revenge from him on account of death of police Head Constable. On the strength of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought to quash the FIR(Annexure P-2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 5. The respondents refuted the prayer of the petitioner and filed the reply, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. According to the prosecution that, since the main accused-Gurpreet Singh, driver of the offending vehicle, did not produce any valid licence, so, the petitioner permitted him to drive the said vehicle, without any valid driving licence and committed the offence punishable under Section 109 IPC, in which, he has been charge-sheeted by the CJM. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say, that the prosecution reiterated the allegations contained in the FIR (Annexure P-2). However, it will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the main petition and prayed for its dismissal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with there valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 7. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with there valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 7. As is evident from the record that, the prosecution claimed that the accident in question had taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the main accused-Gurpreet Singh, while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time, culminating into the death of HC Angrej Singh. It is not a matter of dispute that the main accused-Gurpreet Singh is facing trial under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, in the Court of CJM, Moga. The only vague allegation alleged against the petitioner is that since he permitted the main accused-Gurpreet Singh to drive the offending vehicle without a valid driving licence, so, he is also guilty of the offence of abetment punishable under Section 109 IPC. 8. Above, being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, that arises for determination in this case is, as to whether the provision of abetment is applicable and constitute an offence punishable under Section 109 IPC against the petitioner under the present set of circumstances or not? 9. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative in this respect. 10. As is clear that, ‘abetment’ has been referred under Section 107 IPC and ‘Abettor’ has been defined under Section 108 IPC, which postulate that a person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. 11. A conjoint and meaningful reading of these provisions would reveal that, a person can only be held liable for the commission of offence for abetment, if there is cogent evidence that he actually abetted the commission of the offence and his act was having direct connection and relatable to the main offence and not otherwise. As indicated earlier, in the instant case, how, where, when and in what manner, the petitioner actually instigated or abetted the main accused-Gurpreet Singh, to cause the accident in question, are totally lacking. As indicated earlier, in the instant case, how, where, when and in what manner, the petitioner actually instigated or abetted the main accused-Gurpreet Singh, to cause the accident in question, are totally lacking. Although, it is proved on record (judgment, Annexure P-5) that, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, but assuming for the sake of arguments (though not admitted), that in case, the main accused-Gurpreet Singh was driving the offending vehicle without a valid licence, even then no offence under Section 109 IPC, in any manner, is made out against the petitioner-Ranjit Singh. The mere fact that petitioner-Ranjit Singh was the owner of the offending vehicle at the relevant time, ipso facto is not a cogent ground to array him as an accused under Section 109 IPC. In this manner, no offence of abetment is made out against the petitioner. 12. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. What is not disputed here is that Jaswinder Kaur, widow of, Avtar Singh, son of, Amarjit Kaur and Paramjit Kaur, daughters of, deceased HC Angrej Singh, had filed the claim-petition bearing No.29 dated 26.05.2007, in which, from the pleadings of the parties, issue No.4 was framed, “as to whether driver of the offending Trailor was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident in question.” 13. During the course of trial of the MACT case, counsel for Ranjit Singh (petitioner herein) and main accused Gurpreet Singh (driver of the offending Truck) has placed on record copies of the driving licence, registration certificate, route permit and their validity was upheld by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by way of award dated 04.08.2008 (Annexure P-5). Once, it is proved that Gurpreet Singh, driver of the offending vehicle, was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident in question, in that eventuality, no offence whatsoever under Section 109 IPC is made out against the petitioner(owner) of the offending vehicle, as (contrary) urged on behalf of the prosecution. 14. Moreover, if the crux of the aforesaid material/documents is put together and perused in the right perspective then to me, the conclusion is inescapable that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, by the police on account of death of police Head Constable. 14. Moreover, if the crux of the aforesaid material/documents is put together and perused in the right perspective then to me, the conclusion is inescapable that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, by the police on account of death of police Head Constable. No other overt-act or specific part is attributed to him. The bare reading of FIR(Annexure P-2) and in the absence of any mens ria or material, much less cogent, no such offence is made out against him. The allegations made in the FIR even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie did not constitute/disclose the commission of any offence or make out a case against the petitioner. The allegations made in the FIR against him are so absurd and improbable on the basis of which, no prudent person can ever reach at a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed against him. The FIR appears to have been filed by the police maliciously and vexatiously, in order to wreck vengeance as HC Angrej Singh(deceased) was also the police official. To me, in case, such false criminal prosecution is allowed to continue, then it will inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the petitioner, which is not legally permissible. Such criminal prosecution is liable to be set aside, qua the petitioner only, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a celebrated judgment in case State of Haryana and others Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604, which was again reiterated in case Som Mittal Versus Government of Karnataka, [2008(2) Law Herald (SC) 1119] : 2008(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 92. 15. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned State counsel “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. The indicated benchmark and all the essential ingredients for quashing the criminal prosecution and the ratio of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand. 16. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the case against the main accused, the instant petition qua the petitioner- Ranjit Singh, is accepted. 16. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the case against the main accused, the instant petition qua the petitioner- Ranjit Singh, is accepted. The impugned FIR(Annexure P-2), order dated 25.03.2008 (Annexure P-4) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, with regard and relatable to the petitioner only, are hereby quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 17. Needless to mention that nothing recorded hereinabove, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the course of trial of the case against the main accused, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition only. The compliance of the order and the natural consequences would follow accordingly.