Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 586 (PNJ)

Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-05-06

Sabina

body2013
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR No. 247 dated 23.9.2010, under Section 379, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short), registered at Police Station Rajpura, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a civil suit had been filed by aunt and father of petitioner No.1 with regard to the property in dispute against respondent No. 2 and others. In the said suit, the Civil Court has granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs Kako Devi and Mohinder Singh and defendants were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the property in dispute. Since the aunt and father of petitioner No. 1 were in possession of the suit property, there was no occasion for the petitioners to have committed theft of bricks from the property in question. The FIR in question had been lodged as a counterblast to the suit filed by the aunt and father of petitioner No. 1. 3. Learned State counsel, as well as counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition. 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, prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29.3.2010, accused had entered the bara of the complainant and had given beatings to Sukhdevi and Balwinder Singh. The matter was duly informed to the Panchayat but no action was taken. In the present case, prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29.3.2010, accused had entered the bara of the complainant and had given beatings to Sukhdevi and Balwinder Singh. The matter was duly informed to the Panchayat but no action was taken. During investigation, it transpired that the petitioners had given beatings to the wife of the complainant and had removed the bricks kept in the bara. 6. Annexure P-2 is the copy of the plaint in a civil suit filed by Kako Devi (aunt of petitioner No. 1) and Mohinder Singh (father of petitioner No. 1). A perusal of the same reveals that the said plaintiffs had filed suit for permanent injunction, against respondent No.2 and others, restraining them from interfering in their peaceful possession in khasra No. 1079(0-2) and khasra No. 1078(0-2) situated in the revenue limits of village Mardanpur. 7. Annexure P-3 is the copy of the order passed on an application moved in the civil suit under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A perusal of the same reveals that the Trial Court after hearing both the parties and going through the record had found that as per the revenue record plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property although the gram panchayat was the owner of the said property. The defendants were restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs or from dispossessing them from the gair-mumkin ruries described in the head note of the plaint. The said order was passed on 29.11.2011. 8. A perusal of Annexure P-2 reveals that on 6.8.2010, counsel for respondent No.2 had appeared before the Civil Court and had sought time for filing written statement. FIR in question was registered on 23.9.2010 i.e. after the filing of civil suit by the father of petitioner No. 1. 9. During the course of arguments, it has been admitted by the counsel for respondent No. 2 that the property involved in the civil suit as well as in this case is the same. Since father of petitioner No. 1 was found in possession of the suit property in the civil proceedings, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of FIR in question would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Since father of petitioner No. 1 was found in possession of the suit property in the civil proceedings, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of FIR in question would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Since father of petitioner No. 1 is in possession of the suit property, there was no occasion for the petitioners to have forcibly entered the property in question and inflicted injuries on the person of the wife and son of the complainant. Further, there is no medico-legal report on record with regard to injuries suffered by the wife of the complainant. It is probable that the FIR in question might have been registered as a counter-blast to the Civil Court case filed by the father of petitioner No. 1. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 247 dated 23.9.2010, under Section 379, 323, 506, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Rajpura, District Patiala (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. --------0.B.S.0------------ ————————————