Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 674 (PNJ)

Satnam Singh v. Atinder Kaur

2013-05-21

Sabina

body2013
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint No. 50 dated 24.8.2009 under Section 376, 363, 354, 342, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) (Annexure P-6) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 15.2.2010 (Annexure P-7). 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no allegation had been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. Allegations had been levelled against the son of the petitioner. Petitioner had been merely involved in this case because he was the Chairman of the Block Samiti and was father of accused Kirpal Singh. 3. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, have opposed the petition. 4. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 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. (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. Annexure P-1 is the copy of the FIR No. 73 dated 20.7.2009 under Section 354, 342, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Mulepur, District Fatehgarh Sahib, registered at the instance of respondent No. 1. A perusal of the same reveals that respondent no. 1 levelled allegations qua rape against Kirpal Singh (son of the petitioner) and Bhupinder Singh. Annexure P-1 is the copy of the FIR No. 73 dated 20.7.2009 under Section 354, 342, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station Mulepur, District Fatehgarh Sahib, registered at the instance of respondent No. 1. A perusal of the same reveals that respondent no. 1 levelled allegations qua rape against Kirpal Singh (son of the petitioner) and Bhupinder Singh. It is only stated in the FIR that parents of respondent No. 1 had approached the petitioner with regard to conduct of his son but Kirpal Singh and Bhupinder Singh had not shown any feeling of remorse during amicable settlement and had threatened the complainant on telephone. 6. Annexure P-6 is the copy of the complaint. Para 4 of the complaint reads as under:- “That the accused were saying in the car that the police would not take any action against them as the father of the accused no. 1 is Chairman of Block Samiti Khera and is leader of the ruling party, hence they dared to rape the complainant in the day board light.” 7. Thus, a perusal of the above paragraph reveals that son of the petitioner and his co-accused were saying that police would not take any action against them as petitioner was Chairman of Block Samiti Khera and, hence, they had dared to commit the offence of rape in broad daylight. The said assertion made by the son of the petitioner and his co-accused does not lead to the inference that petitioner had any role to play at the time of commission of offence. The complaint in question had been filed as challan was not presented against the accused as during investigation it transpired that the allegations levelled in the complaint were false and were due to party faction in the village and, consequently, cancellation report was prepared. The Trial Court while ordering the summoning of the petitioner committed a patent error as no allegation had been levelled against the petitioner which could be said to have constituted commission of criminal offence. During the course of arguments, it has transpired that son of the petitioner, who had faced the trial, has since been convicted by the Trial Court. The Trial Court while ordering the summoning of the petitioner committed a patent error as no allegation had been levelled against the petitioner which could be said to have constituted commission of criminal offence. During the course of arguments, it has transpired that son of the petitioner, who had faced the trial, has since been convicted by the Trial Court. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has placed reliance on paragraph 4 of the complaint, reproduced above, to substantiate his argument that petitioner was also liable to face the trial but plain reading of paragraph 4 of the complaint does not lead to the inference that petitioner can be said to have committed any criminal offence. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Complaint No. 50 dated 24.8.2009 under Section 376, 363, 354, 342, 506 IPC including the impugned summoning order dated 15.2.2010 (Annexure P-7), and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner, are quashed. ---------0.B.S.0------------