Baldev Kaur vs Harbhag Kaur

K.S. Kumaran, J.

RespondentHarbhag Kaur preferred a complaint before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, on 16.11.1995 (Annexure P1) against Baldev Kaur and Bhag Kaur (petitioners herein) and Chanchal Singh under Sections 323, 324, 447, 448, 452 and 506 IPC read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The material allegations in the complaint are as follows :

"That on 27.9.1995 at around 7 A.M. the complainant and her husband Santokh Singh were feeding fodder to their cattle inside the boundary wall explained above, when suddenly the accused party armed with deadly weapons viz., Chanchal Singh with Kulhara and Baldev Kaur and Bhag Kaur with lathis, entered from the gate of the house of the complainant in threatening manner and giving filthy abuses to the complainant and her husband and stating that the complainant had abused the accused party yesterday in the presence of some other persons of the village. Upon which the husband of the complainant asked them to gather the village panchayat and elders so that the matter can be enquired into in their presence and also asked the accused party to go out of the house property of the complainant; upon this accused Chanchal Singh gave a slap to Santokh Singh and when the complainant intervened to save her husband when the said Chanchal Singh gave a Kulhara blow on the front side of the head of the complainant and she fell down bleeding profusely from the wound. In the meantime Baldev Kaur and Bhag Kaur gave lathi blows on the back side of the complainant. The complainant and her husband raised hue and cry upon which one Piara Singh s/o Ishar Singh shouted to the accused party not to beat the complainant and then the accused party left the place of occurrence and ran towards their house. Accused Chanchal while going out of the gate was loudly shouting and abusing the complainant and her husband threatening to eliminate them as and when he gets proper opportunity."

The learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, after examining the complaint and going through the medicolegal report held that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding against the accused under Sections 324, 323, 452/34I.P.C. and ordered them to be summoned for 24.5.1996 vide his order dated 30.3.1996.

It is to quash the complaint Annexure P1, the summoning order Annexure P2 and the consequential proceedings that the petitioners have come forward with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

According to the petitioner, the delay from 27.9.1995, the date of the alleged occurrence to 16.11.1995 in filing the complaint goes to show that the complainant had been procuring some witnesses. The petitioners allege that as per D.D.R. No. 19 dated 5.10.1995 the complainant has alleged that only Chanchal Singh and his son Goldy had attacked them whereas in the present complaint she has substituted the presentpetitioners in place of Goldy. Petitioners also allege that vide order dated 1.2.1996 Chanchal Singh was discharged by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, by recording the statement of the parties. The petitioners have further alleged that no doctor was examined to prove the medicolegal report and that the alleged witness Piara Singh was not examined. The petitioners have alleged that the learned Magistrate has not taken note of the delay and also about the proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioners, no offence is made out against them.

Though the respondent has appeared through counsel, no replystatement has been filed. I have heard the counsel for both the sides. The main contention of the petitioners is that with reference to the same occurrence, the police filed a Kalandra under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. wherein it has been alleged that it is only Chanchal Singh and his son Goldy had attacked her and her husband and she had not stated anything about the present petitioners. The statement of Harbhag Kaur, the respondentherein has been produced as Annexure P4 in support of this contention of the petitioners. The petitioners further allege that in the said proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 Cr.P.C. on 1.2.1996 the respondent had appeared before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anandpur Sahib, and stated that she has no danger to her life from Chanchal Singh and, therefore, Chanchal Singh was discharged. Of course in the Kalandra under D.D.R. No. 19 dated 5.10.1995 under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C., the respondentcomplainant had stated that on 27.9.1995 at about 7 AM she and her husband were attacked by Chanchal Singh and Goldy. Nothing has been mentioned about the present petitioners.

Therefore the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in view of these omissions and contradictions, the complaint and further proceedings are liable to be quashed. But in these proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not bound to critically examine the case and the evidence and adjudge upon the credibility or otherwise of the case of the complainant on the basis of certain materials now produced before the Court. If there are some omissions or contradictions as contended by the petitioners in view of annexure P4, the petitioners can certainly take advantage of the same at the time of the trial before the trial Court. Similarly, the order annexure L3 discharging Chanchal Singh from the proceedings under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. will also not help petitioners in the present petition.

The portion of the complaint extracted by me above clearly goes to show that there are grounds to proceed against the petitioners. At this stage, this Court is concerned only with the question whether a reading of the complaint prima facie shows the existence of grounds for proceeding against the petitioners, which it does. Therefore, the fact that the Doctor has not been examined to prove the medicolegal report, that the witness Piara Singh has not been examined are all no ground for quashing the complaint and the summoning order. Therefore, petition has to fail.

Accordingly the petition is dismissed.