Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 188 (PNJ)

Baljit Kaur v. Daljit Singh

2013-02-14

SABINA

body2013
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint No.297 dated 29.9.2010 under Section 420, 406, 506, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short), police station Kotwali Nabha District Patiala; summoning order dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure P-7) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the respondent had filed a complaint before the police against Navneet Kaur with regard to the commission of offence in question. No allegation was levelled against the petitioner. Thereafter, statements of Daljit Singh as well as witnesses Sumit Sehgal and Gurpreet Singh were recorded during investigation of the said complaint. After thorough investigation of the case, Assistant Sub Inspector submitted the report Annexure P-5 that no offence as alleged by the petitioner was made out. Thereafter, the respondent had filed the complaint in question (Annexure P-6) against Navneet Kaur and the petitioner. Even a perusal of the said complaint itself revealed that as per the respondent, the money in question had been paid by him to Navneet Kaur. The witnesses examined by the complainant in support of his case had also levelled allegations only against Navneet Kaur. Hence, the complaint against petitioner was liable to be quashed. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. 4. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 5. In the present case, Annexure P-1 is the complaint moved by the respondent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali for taking action against Navneet Kaur. In the present case, Annexure P-1 is the complaint moved by the respondent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali for taking action against Navneet Kaur. During investigation of the said complaint, statement of the respondent (Annexure P-2) was recorded, wherein he had levelled allegations against Navneet Kaur. Statements of Sumit Sehgal (Annexure P-3) and Gurpreet Singh (Annexure P-4) were also recorded during investigation and they also levelled allegations against Navneet Kaur. After thorough investigation of the case, the report was prepared (Annexure P-5) that there was no truth in the complaint moved by the respondent. The recommendation was made by Assistant Sub Inspector to file the complaint. The said recommendation was accepted by the Inspector and the complaint was ordered to be filed on 11.2.2010. Thereafter, the respondent filed the complaint in question (Annexure P-6) against Navneet Kaur as well as the present petitioner. A perusal of the complaint (Annexure P-6) also reveals that mainly the allegations have been levelled against Navneet Kaur. Entire payment as per the respondent was also made to Navneet Kaur for sending him to Italy. Annexure P-9 is the statement made by CW-2 Sumil Sehgal and Annexure P-10 is the statement made by CW-3 Gurpreet Singh in the preliminary evidence led by the complainant in support of his complaint. A perusal of the same also reveals that the allegations have been levelled by them only against Navneet Kaur. 6. In view of the above factual background, it is evident that the complaint so far as the petitioner is concerned is liable to be quashed as at an initial stage, no allegations were levelled against her by the complainant. It is only at the time of filing of the complaint in question, the respondent has arrayed the petitioner as an accused along with Navneet Kaur. The trial Court had erred in summoning the petitioner to face the trial vide the impugned order dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure P-7). Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No.297 dated 29.9.2010 under Section 420, 406, 506, 120-B, 34 IPC, police station Kotwali Nabha District Patiala; summoning order dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure P-7) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner, are quashed.