Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 371 (UTT)

GURUCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-06-24

U.C.DHYANI

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral) Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 in the Court is taken on record. 2. The applicants, by means of present application/petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the summoning order dated 21.04.2008 as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no. 08 of 2008, Lakkha Singh vs Gurucharan Singh and another, under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, within the jurisdiction of police station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. A criminal complaint case was filed by the complainant/respondent no. 2 against the accused persons/applicants in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC. After the statements of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and Harbhajan Singh and Jaswant Singh under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons/applicants were summoned to face the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, vide order dated 21.04.2008, found that no prima facie offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC was made out against the accused persons. Accused persons/applicants have challenged the impugned summoning order under Sections 504, 506 of IPC. In the complaint as well as in the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the abuses, allegedly hurled at the complainant, were not described. The same was the case with the statements of Harbhajan Singh and Jaswant Singh under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Prima facie, the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC were not made out against the accused persons on a bare reading of the complaint and statements under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. 4. It was also alleged in the complaint that the complainant was married to the daughter of accused no. 1 on 15.01.2007. Kamaljeet Kaur was residing with the complainant (husband) after her marriage. The husband and wife were living peacefully. On 10.09.2007, the accused persons came to the house of the complainant. They requested the complainant to send his wife, to which the complainant declined. The accused persons insisted for taking away Kamaljeet Kaur with them. Accused Gurucharan Singh is the father of Kamaljeet Kaur and accused no. 2 Palvinder Singh is the brother of Kamaljeet Kaur. They levelled allegations against the complainant that Kamaljeet Kaur is harassed by him. They requested the complainant to send his wife, to which the complainant declined. The accused persons insisted for taking away Kamaljeet Kaur with them. Accused Gurucharan Singh is the father of Kamaljeet Kaur and accused no. 2 Palvinder Singh is the brother of Kamaljeet Kaur. They levelled allegations against the complainant that Kamaljeet Kaur is harassed by him. They insisted that the complainant will have to mutate her name in respect of five acres of land, or else, he will have to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/- in her name in a bank, failing which the complainant will be killed. On 19.11.2007, accused no. 1, duly armed with knife, came alongwith 5-6 people and tried to take his daughter (complainant’s wife) alongwith him. An altercation took place between them. Some of the villagers intervened, otherwise the accused persons would have killed the complainant and his family members. Largely the averments made in the complaint were narrated by the complainant in his statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The complaint story was supported by Harbhajan Singh. Another witness, Jaswant Singh denied any marpeet (assault) having been taken place in his presence. Jaswant Singh said that the accused no. 1 wanted to take back his daughter (who was the wife of the complainant). 5. Learned counsel for the applicants drew the attention of this Court towards Annexure-4, enclosed with the supplementary affidavit, and submitted that an out of Court settlement took place between the parties on 26.07.2007. The present incident allegedly took place on 19.11.2007. Two earlier complaints filed by Lakkha Singh were quashed by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2012. Those complaint cases were filed in respect of alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 392 of IPC against the accused applicants. It is also pointed out that the FIR in said case was lodged by Kamaljeet Kaur, daughter of applicant no. 1 Gurucharan Singh against Lakkha Singh and his family members in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 376, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. The application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was moved by Lakkha Singh and his family members without success. An SLP was preferred against the order of High Court, which was dismissed. 1 Gurucharan Singh against Lakkha Singh and his family members in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 376, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. The application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was moved by Lakkha Singh and his family members without success. An SLP was preferred against the order of High Court, which was dismissed. At the instance of Kamaljeet Kaur, an FIR was lodged against Lakkha Singh, Darshan Singh, Avtar Singh and Amandeep Kaur, in which a chargesheet under Section 376 of IPC alongwith other offences was submitted against Darshan Singh and Avtar Singh and chargesheet against Lakkha Singh and Amandeep Kaur was filed in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 313, 498A of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that the present complaint was filed by the complainant as a counterblast and in order to negate the effect of said chargesheet. 6. Whereas the sum and substance of the arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the applicants is that the present complaint case is nothing but a counterblast to the legal action initiated by the applicants against the complainant/respondent no. 2, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted, among other things, that on a bare reading of the complaint and the testimony of the witnesses, a prima facie offence under Section 506 of IPC is made out. 7. According to the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986, the court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the court may interfere. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. The High Court should not unduly interfere. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not, but if the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the court may interfere. The Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. where the exercise of such power is essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice. 8. Although inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself, but the instant case appears to be one such case in which such jurisdiction should be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 9. The application/petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is accordingly allowed. Summoning order dated 21.04.2008 as well as the entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 08 of 2008, Lakkha Singh vs Gurucharan Singh and another, under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, falling within the jurisdiction of police station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar are hereby quashed.