Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 131 (JK)

Suminder Singh v. Karandeep Singh

2019-03-15

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Through the instant petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C) petitioner seeks quashment of complaint and order dated 17.04.2017 passed by the Ld. Sub-Registrar Judicial Magistrate 1stClass, Jammu in complaint titled “Karandeep Singh Vs Suminder Singh for offences under Sections 323/506 RPC . 2. The case of the petitioner is that a false and frivolous complaint has been filed by the respondent who is nephew of Suminder Singh Sodhi, Director Delhi Public School, Jammu against him on the behest of said Surinder Singh Sodhi just to harass and defame him amongst the relations, bradri and friends. It is stated that Surinder Singh Sodhi who is co- brother of the petitioner has been interfering in the family affairs of the petitioner, he has instigated his wife and got filed civil suit in the court of 1st Addl. Munsiff Forest Magistrate, Jammu and also an application under Sections 107/117 Cr.P.C before the District Magistrate/Dy. Commissioner, Jammu. It is further stated that since Surinder Singh Sodhi being an influential person got order issued by the Dy. Commissioner Jammu against the petitioner asking for furnishing bail bond and surety bonds under Sections 107/112 Cr.P.C, which was illegal and the same was set aside by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu in revision vide order dated 08.05.2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said Surinder Singh Sodhi has been manipulating to involve the petitioner in different cases in order to pressurize the petitioner to withdraw the application filed before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Jammu for service benefits to which the petitioner refused and the present complaint is filed through the respondent who is nephew of Surinder Singh Sodhi. The present complaint is to counter blast to the application of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the complaint and order dated 17.04.2017, challenges the same on the following grounds:- i) That co-brother of petitioner Mr.Surinder Singh Sodhi Managing Director Delhi Public School Shahidi Chowk, Jammu appointed the petitioner as manager operations. The petitioner resigned from the post of Manager Operations in the month of September 2015 and intended to start his own business which the said Surinder SinghSodhi did not tolerate and the problem started thereafter. The petitioner resigned from the post of Manager Operations in the month of September 2015 and intended to start his own business which the said Surinder SinghSodhi did not tolerate and the problem started thereafter. ii) That after resignation the petitioner, the respondent who is nephew of Surinder Singh Sodhi MD , DPS Jammu has been appointed as Manager Operations in the school. iii) That the petitioner was not paid his service benefits, gratuity, leave salary despite requests, the petitioner adopted legal recourse for recovery of the same and preferred application before the Assistant Labour Commission Jammu due to which the said Mr. Surinder Singh Sodhi got irritated and he started interfering in his family affairs as referred above instigated his wife got filed different proceedings in indifferent court against the petitioner on false and frivolous grounds. She has deserted petitioner and not even looking after the children. iv) The present complaint is also manipulation by the said Surinder Singh Sodhi Managing Director Delhi Public School through the respondent who is his nephew and is serving under him. From the bare reading of the complaint it is apparently seems manipulated and fabricated one, just to harass the petitioner and defame him in the eyes of relatives, bradri people and in the friend circle of the petitioner. v) It is submitted that Surinder Singh Sodhi got filed the present complaint through the respondent in order to pressurize the petitioner to withdraw his claim before the Asstt. Labaour Commissioner Jammu. As the petitioner was time and again asked by the said Surinder Singh Sodhi to withdraw the said application and on his refusal the present complaint has been filed which is sheer abuse of the process of the court. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the law on the subject. Law with regard to inherent power of High court has now been well settled. In in case titled State of Telangana v Habib Abdullah Jeelani & ors., AIR 2017 SC 37 it is held as under:- “11. Once an FIR is registered, the accused persons can always approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the FIR. In in case titled State of Telangana v Habib Abdullah Jeelani & ors., AIR 2017 SC 37 it is held as under:- “11. Once an FIR is registered, the accused persons can always approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the FIR. In Bhajan Lal (supra) the two-Judge Bench after referring to Hazari Lal Gupta v. Rameshwar Prasad[7], Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration[8], Amar Nath v. State of Haryana[9], Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana[10], State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha[11], State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha[12], Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi[13], Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre[14], State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan[15] and some other authorities that had dealt with the contours of exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, thought it appropriate to mention certain category of cases by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court also observed that it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad cases wherein such power should be exercised. The illustrations given by the Court need to be recapitulated:- “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, 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 not 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 not 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 a 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 a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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.” It is worthy to note that the Court has clarified that the said parameters or guidelines are not exhaustive but only illustrative. Nevertheless, it throws light on the circumstances and situations where court’s inherent power can be ex ercised. 12. There can be no dispute over the proposition that inherent power in a matter of quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and when and only when such exercise is justified by the test specifically laid down in the provision itself. There is no denial of the fact that the power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide but it needs no special emphasis to state that conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 6. As per above law, a complaint/FIR is liable to be quashed, if any of seven conditions is fulfilled. Before dealing the matter, the relevant para of complaint reads as under:- 3. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 6. As per above law, a complaint/FIR is liable to be quashed, if any of seven conditions is fulfilled. Before dealing the matter, the relevant para of complaint reads as under:- 3. That on 10-04-2017, at around 3:45 pm the complainant along with one Ramesh Chander Gupta, S/O Lt Sri. T.R Gupta R/O 146 street no. 5 Talab Tillo Jammu were on their way for purchasing tiles for the School, when they reached near Needhesh Apartments, the accused, who was following the complainant’s car, suddenly overtook the car of the complainant and parked his car across the car of the complainant for which the complainant who was driving the car, had to apply sudden brakes in order to avoid collusion. By the time the complainant could understand as what is the problem, the accused came out of his car in anger and in a provoked condition, and caught hold of the collar of the said Ramesh Chander Gupta who was sitting in the side seat and threatened him that he would be beaten and then alone he would release and pay the gratuity to the accused. The intention of the accused, therefore, clearly was to alarm the complainant and said Ramesh Chander to release the gratuity, which otherwise he was not bound to do during pendency of the case filed by the accused. The complainant when intervened in between and requested the accused not to take law in his hands, but the accused who was pre occupied with a criminal mind, and grudge against the complainant also for being in his place in the school, pushed the complainant and gave a blow in his stomach, which caused severe bodily pain to the complainant. 4. That in view of the aforesaid accusations, the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 323 & 506 of the Ranbir Penal Code and is liable to be prosecuted for the commission of the said offences by this Hon’ble Court. The offences punishable under section 323, 506 of the RPC are non-cognizable therefore in terms in terms of clause (c)of Sub-Section () of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSvt.1989, the present complaint has been filed directly before the Hon’ble Court 5. The offences punishable under section 323, 506 of the RPC are non-cognizable therefore in terms in terms of clause (c)of Sub-Section () of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSvt.1989, the present complaint has been filed directly before the Hon’ble Court 5. That having a bird’s eye view of the provisions and the scheme of the act, perception seems to form the mental back ground in which the act has been formulated, as such, the provisions forms sheet anchor of this case because of Mens Rea and Actusreus, as such, accused be punished with great severity, because commission of offences is taken serious note of by the criminal law.” 7. On these allegations, court below after recording the statement of complainant and one witness on 7.4.2017 issued the process. 8. From a bare perusal of relevant extract of contents of complaint and documents annexed in this petition, it is evident that, petitioner was an employee in DPS Jammu as Manager operation ; now complainant is working in his place; petitioner has claimed gratuity from school, where complainant is Manager operation and matter is pending before ALC, Jammu. The contents of complainant on the basis of which trial court has issued process, clearly reveal that complainant is not an aggrieved person; because as per complaint it is the Ramesh Chander Gupta who was sitting in the side seat was threatened by the petitioner ; it is further case that petitioner asked complainant and said Ramesh Chander to release the gratuity; it has further been stated that it is the complainant who intervened and requested the accused not to take law in his hands. 9. So as per law said Ramesh chander should be complainant and complainant herein should be witness. Further after perusing the complaint, I find that, no list of witnesses has been furnished except name of said Ramesh chander ; the alleged occurrence has taken place in street and at 3.45 PM , so there would be many passerby on spot. All the facts are seemed to be manufactured only to create illusion that criminal act has been committed. Further there is no averments in complaint as to whether complainant has ever approached before I/C of concern police station for lodging FIR or if refused, then whether complainant approached superintendent of police in terms of Section 154(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. 10. Further there is no averments in complaint as to whether complainant has ever approached before I/C of concern police station for lodging FIR or if refused, then whether complainant approached superintendent of police in terms of Section 154(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. 10. The Hon’ble Apex court in M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr vs Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors decided on 4th November, 1997, reported in 1997(4) Crimes 212 (SC) held as under:- “22. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. it is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 11. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that allegations levelled in 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. This criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and has been 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. 12. Hence this petition is allowed and impugned complaint and order of taking cognizance is quashed. Rashid Ali Dar, J.—This judgment is pronounced by me, in terms of Rule 138(3) of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999.