Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1574 (PNJ)

Dharam Pal v. State of Punjab

2014-11-18

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.: - This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of Calandra (Annexure P-1) under Section 182 IPC dated 23.10.2012 and summoning order dated 16.02.2013 and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner got registered an FIR bearing No.293 dated 02.12.2007 under Sections 447, 511 and 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Phagwara, District Kapurthala. The contents of the said FIR are as under:- “To the SHO Sahib, Police Station Sadar Phagwara, District Kapurthala, subject: Trespassing of the land, Sir it is requested that I Dharam Pal son of Shri Sadhu Ram caste Adharmi resident of Village Bhano Ki, Police Station Sadar, Phagwara District Kapurthala, I am an agriculturist by possession. I have land in Village Kirpalpur of whose I am owner of the land in possession in Khasra No.41 and 172/42, Phagwara, on the southern side of Phagwara Road, yesterday on 01.12.2007 at around 10 in the morning I went to see my land, I saw that on the land the chara Pathe I have sown are being cut by Parkash Kaur widow of Karnail Singh resident of Kirpalpur, Bhupinder Singh Chakiwala son of Harbans Singh resident of Kirpalpur and Gulshan son of not known who were trying to steal the same. In my land they along with other 5/6 persons had thrown one trolley of soil and 2/3 trolley of bricks on my land with the intention of illegal possession. On seeing me the above stated persons ran away. Kindly take legal action. Yours Dharam Pal.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after investigation, a cancellation report was prepared on 01.08.2008 and the same was presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, which was objected to by the petitioner and the same was sent for re-investigation by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara. The police again after re-investigation have re-filed the cancellation report dated 11.10.2008, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara. After perusing the said cancellation report, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara found that no purpose would be served by getting the said cancellation report re- investigated. The police again after re-investigation have re-filed the cancellation report dated 11.10.2008, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara. After perusing the said cancellation report, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara found that no purpose would be served by getting the said cancellation report re- investigated. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that in the investigation reports, repeatedly the police is mentioning Khasra No.130/29 in spite of Khasra No.41 and 172/42 and the police officers had been investigating the other piece of land. He further submits that in view of the complaint filed by the petitioner as well as the summoning orders (Annexure P-6) dated 04.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, the earlier summoning orders dated 16.02.2013 as well as Calandra dated 23.10.2012 (Annexure P-1) should be quashed in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that after registration of the FIR, an applications No.1420/SPC dated 23.05.2008, 3846/SPC dated 03.12.2007, 2944/SPC dated 18.12.2007, were filed by Parkash Kaur and others regarding their false implication in FIR No.293 dated 02.12.2007, which was registered by the petitioner. On this, a thorough and fair enquiry was conducted by S.P. (D), Kapurthala, after vising the spot and he submitted his enquiry report concluding that the petitioner has got registered false FIR for taking forcible possession of the pot in dispute which was in possession of accused, namely, Parkash Kaur, Bhupinder Singh and Gulshan Kumar and thereafter, the cancellation report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara. Vide order dated 16.02.2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, summoned the petitioner in the said Calandra after coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has got registered false FIR and thus, liable to be punished under Section 182 IPC. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6. In this case, the petitioner is being tried under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6. In this case, the petitioner is being tried under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations levelled in FIR No.293, dated 02.12.2007, under Section 447, 511 and 34 of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sadar Phagwara, District Kapurthala, at the instance of the petitioner, which was ultimately cancelled on 27.05.2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, and the allegations in the complaint filed by the petitioner, in which summoning order was passed on 04.03.2014 are the same. The petitioner was summoned in Clalandra under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code on 16.02.2013, in respect of the FIR lodged by the petitioner. So, at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled in the FIR were wrong and false. When an accused is summoned by the Court in a criminal case, it is on the basis of the evidence produced in preliminary enquiry and the learned Magistrate was satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused. In this case, the accused have been summoned on 04.03.2014, by the learned Magistrate, on the allegations levelled in the FIR. Meaning thereby, that a prima facie case under Section 379, 447 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the summoned persons. The matter is sub judice before a competent Court of law and the allegations levelled in the FIR are under judicial scrutiny. 7. The basic requirement of Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code is that the information given to the police officer should be false within the knowledge of the person giving such information and there must be positive knowledge or belief that it is false. 8. In this case, at this stage, it cannot be said that the information given to the police in the First Information Report (FIR), to the knowledge of the petitioner is false, in view of, summoning the accused by the Court in criminal complaint on the same allegations, finding the allegations to be prima facie true, which the police stated to be false in proceedings under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. 9. Keeping in view the circumstances of this case and the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that continuing of proceedings under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code is abuse of process of law. 10. So, this petition is allowed. Calandra under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code dated 23.10.2012 (Annexure P-1) and all consequent proceedings in pursuance thereof, are hereby, quashed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————