CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS None on 27 September 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No. M- 14160 of 2010Date of decision:-05.4.2011

Satnam Kaur and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:-Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG Punjab.

RITU BAHRI J.(Oral)

Petitioners Satnam Kaur and Jagdeep Singh have sought quashingof Kalendra under Sections 182 and 120-B IPC dated 27.9.2007 and allsubsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioners on the basis of Kalendra,sent by Police Station Koom Kalan, District Khanna.

The petitioners in the present case allege that on 12.5.2006 whenthey were going to Village Pattran District Ropar in their Tata Indica car, all theaccused namely Rajesh Kumar son of Raj Kumar, Amarjit son of Raj Kumar, RajKumar, Rajinder Kumar @ Kala and Manga sons of Niranjan Dass came in a bluecolour jeep and attacked the complainant and her husband. They receivedinjuries while accused Rajesh Kumar snatched Rs.5,000/-. The petitionersescaped in their car. The matter was reported to the police, the petitioners weretaken to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. An application was made to the SeniorSuperintendent of Police, Ludhiana for registration of a case. No action wastaken by the police. The petitioners filed a complaint to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. Vide complaint No.59 dated 05.7.2006, all the accusedhave been summoned vide order dated 29.3.2007 (Annexure P-2).

The police has filed a kalendra vide report No.28 dated 27.9.2007under Sections 182 and 120-B IPC (Annexure P-3). The charges have beenframed vide order dated 05.5.2010 (Annexure P-4). The revision petition againstthe order dated 5.5.2010 has been dismissed vide order dated 25.2.2010 passedby the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana (Annexure P-5).The revision petition has been dismissed on the ground that even though no FIRwas registered but the police had recorded a DDR No.28 dated 27.9.2007 againstthe complainant. On the basis of DDR, investigation was carried out and it wasfound that the incident narrated by Satnam Kaur was false. For registration ofKalendra under Section 182 IPC recording of DDR is sufficient and after dueinvestigation statement made by Satnam Kaur was found false.

Counsel for the respondent-State Mr. Munish Kumar, AAG Punjabhas argued that after lodging of DDR an investigation was carried out and about16 different persons of the locality were joined, who stated that the allegedoccurrence had not taken place and the entire story is concocted. PetitionerNo.2 had caused injuries to petitioner No.1 in order to falsify implicate hisopponents, who have got registered a case FIR No.39 dated 27.5.2004 underSection 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Koom Kalanagainst petitioner No.2. Initiation of proceedings under Section 182 IPC are notliable to be quashed. The petitioners have made an application before thelearned Magistrate for clubbing the Kalendra under Section 182 IPC with thecomplaint filed by the petitioners and not to proceed with the Kalendra underSection 182 IPC till the decision of the complaint.

Admittedly, in the private complaint, filed by the petitioners, theaccused have been summoned to face the trial vide order dated 29.3.2007

Conclusion

(Annexure P-2). Reference is being made by Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate counselfor the petitioners to the decision of this Court in Banta Singh versus State ofHaryana 1995(3) RCR 133 and Ramesh Chand versus State of Haryana2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 718 to contend that after the accused have beensummoned by the Magistrate in complaint, proceedings initiated under Section182 IPC are an abuse of process of the Court and are liable to be quashed.Reference has been made to a decision in State of Punjab versus Brij LalPalta AIR 1969 Supreme Court 355 in which the Supreme Court was seized of asimilar matter to the one in hand. It was held that once a complaint filed by theinformant, which is based on the same facts and allegations on which the firstinformation was registered, is being proceeded with, it is not open to aMagistrate to take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committedunder Section 211 Indian Penal Code. It was further held that although Section182 IPC is distinct from the offence under Section 211, the latter is a moreserious offence and may include the offence under the former section. It isapparent tht if the case under Section 182 IPC is allowed to proceed a decisionin the said case would tantamount to pre-judging the complaint filed by thepetitioner. The prosecution of the petitioner under Section 182 IPC during thependency of his complaint, is evidently an abuse of the process of the Court andit would be but proper to secure the ends of justice to quash these proceedings.In Ramesh Chand versus State of Haryana (supra) similar view has beenfollowed by this Court that in the private complaint filed by the petitioner, theaccused have been summoned, though they were found innocent by the policein the FIR and keeping in view the aforesaid settled proposition of law, at thisstage it cannot be said that the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the FIRare false. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the police against the petitionerunder Section 182 IPC are liable to be quashed. In Banta Singh versus State of Haryana (supra) it is held that the proceedings initiated under Section 182Cr.P.C. are liable to be quashed when on a complaint filed by the complainant,the Magistrate has issued summoning orders to the accused. If in theinvestigation of an FIR, the accused were found innocent and subsequently in aprivate complaint, filed by the complainant, the accused are summoned by theMagistrate, then the proceedings initiated under Section 182 Cr.P.C. are liable tobe quashed.

Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the kalendrasubmitted by the police against the petitioners under Sections 182 and 120-B IPCdated 27.9.2007 is quashed with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.The petition is disposed of accordingly.

April 05, 2011Vijay Asija

( RITU BAHRI )JUDGE