Daljit Singh vs State of Haryana

B. Rai, J.

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash FIR No. 198 dated 3.10.1996 under Sections 323/427/506/148/149 I.P.C. registered at P.S. Indri, District Karnal, Annexure P3 on the complaint of Raghubir Singh s/o Sher Singh r/o Village Gudha. The FIR when translated in English reads as under :

"That on 27.9.97 my tractors Mohindra and other Eicher were running in my field at about 6.00 O''clock. The above noted accused came in my field and attacked and caused heavy damage to my tractor, quarrelled with my servants and made them to run away from the fields. My driver Balwant Singh came to me and told the whole story. I alongwith Balwant Singh and Pawan went to the fields. I saw that with the accused some other persons were also there. I do not recognise them. They were standing in my fields and one Maruti Esteem which belongs to Daljeet Singh, No. HR01D0800, one Gypsy, one Bullet motorcycle and one tractor alongwith horrow were there. We have seen our tractors. The tyres were without air and lights were broken. I asked Daljeet Singh what are you doing. Daljeet Singh became angry and started abusing me, manhandled and told that he will take possession of the land today. He has come with full preparation. If I stopped him, he will kill me and my dead body will go from there. He started manhandling me and put me down. My servant Pawan Kumar got me rescied from the clutches of Daljeet Singh. Daljeet Singh asked his wife as to what she was looking for. Take out pistol from purse and kill him. Bakhtawar Singh and Jai Parkash Saini also gave lalkara that there was good chance to kill Reghubir Singh. Kanwal Nain wife of Daljeet Singh took out pistol from her purse and pointed towards me. In the meantime my neighbourer Shisha Singh resident of Village Dhamanheri whose fields are near my fields came and requested Smt. Kanwal Nain, wife of Daljeet Singh not to do all that. The accused told Shisha Singh not to interfere. Shisha Singh told them that he will not allow to happen that. Then Shisha Singh asked me to run away and accordingly I ran away from there and came to my house. When the accused passed in front of my house in their vehicles they abused me and also fired in the air.

The petition is titled as Daljeet Singh and two others v. State of Haryana and others. It is significant to note that "others" have not been impleaded as respondents by name. Therefore, it has to be treated that the only respondent is the State of Haryana.

In response to notice of motion, the State filed reply in the form of affidavit of Ram Niwas, S.I., SHO PS Indri, District Karnal, whereby all the averments contained in the petition have been denied and controverted. A specific plea has been raised that present offences were not committed by Daljeet Singh in the discharge of his official duties, therefore, he was not entitled to any benefit under the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. It was also pleaded that matter is sub judice as Magistrate at Karnal is seized of it. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed on merits.

Both the sides have been heard. Record perused.

It was contended that Daljeet Singh, petitioner was serving in Indian Air Force in the year 1979. One Raghubir Singh grabbed his land by getting a false and fabricated sale deed executed in his favour. Signatures and thumb impression of Daljeet Singh were got prepared through some one so that sale deed could be executed. When the petitioner came to know about this false and fabricated document, he immediately approached SHO, PS Indri to take action against Raghubir Singh and other accused, but SHO PS Indri has not taken any action and instead the police was pressurizing the petitioner to compromise the matter otherwise he would be implicated in false and fabricated case. When the petitioner did not agree to effect the compromise the police obtained an application from Reghubir Singh on 28.9.1996 and on that application a case was registered against the petitioner. That application was kept pending for 5 days and during that period, the petitioner was pressurised to effect the compromise otherwise on the said application, case would be registered against the petitioner. The two other accused namely Colonel Baktawar Singh and Jai Parkash Saini have been implicated in the FIR as Raghubir Singh wanted to encroach upon the land of Colonel Baktawar Singh and that of his wife Smt. Harinder Kaur. Even a suit was filed by Raghubir Singh for permanent injunction on 14.6.1995 against Smt. Harinder Kaur. The contention is that FIR in question was registered with mala fide intention just to implicate the petitioners to expert pressure on the petitioners to effect compromise in respect of land of the petitioner. It was also contended that Daljeet Singh, petitioner had made an application to the police of P.S. Indri on 7.9.1996, but no action was taken by the police. Instead the police started pressurizing the petitioner to effect compromise with Raghubir Singh who happens to be financially sound and politically influential person. It was emphatically urged that on 27.9.1996, Daljeet Singh was serving at Air Force Station 9 TAC Air Force under head quarters 2 Corps of the Army and on that day Daljeet Singh was on duty. Therefore, it cannot be said that Daljeet Singh, petitioner was in any way concerned with the commission of the crime alleged. It was also argued that Shisha Singh has been cited as an eye witness to the occurrence. But Shisha Singh himself is involved in case FIR No. 214 and therefore, the petitioner suspects that Shisha Singh might have signed and put his thumb impression on the sale deed and due to that Shisha Singh has been made a witness. The learned counsel for the petitioners went on to argue that in the set of circumstances even if the allegations contained in the FIR are taken to be correct on their face value, no offence against the petitioners is made out. Lastly, it was argued that no doubt after the investigation of the case challan has been presented, but no charge so far has been framed. Therefore, filing of the challan is not an impediment for quashing the FIR. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on a decision of single Bench of this Court in Gurnam Singh v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) RCR(Criminal) 51.

The contentions raised have been considered. The same are bereft of any persuasive force. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not refute the assertion of the learned State counsel that after investigation not only challan has been presented but charge has also been framed against the petitioners and a Court of competent jurisdiction is seized of the matter.

In Minakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar, 1994(3) RCR 123, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the offences, for which charge sheet was submitted and cognizance taken, were triable as a warrant case. The Magistrate was to proceed in accordance with Sections 239 and 240 of the Code at the time of framing of the charge. Under the above Sections the Magistrate is first required to consider the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code and examine the accused, if he thinks necessary, and give an opportunity to the prosecution and the accused of being heard. If on such consideration, examination and hearing the Magistrate finds the charge groundless he has to discharge the accused in terms of Section 239, Criminal Procedure Code; conversely, if he finds that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable by him he has to frame a charge in terms of Section 240, Criminal Procedure Code.

If charges are framed in accordance with Section 240, Criminal Procedure Code on a finding that a prima facie case has been made out as had been done in the instant case the person arraigned may, if he feels aggrieved, invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or the Sessions Judge to contend that the charge sheet submitted under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code and documents sent with it did not disclose any ground to presume that he had committed any offence for which he is charged and the revisional Court if so satisfied can quash the charges framed against him. To put it differently, once charges are framed under Section 240, Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240, Criminal Procedure Code nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence.

InState of Bihar and another v. P.P. Sharma and another, AIR 1991 SC 1260 in para 33 of the report, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, were pleased to observe that we are of the considered view that at a stage when the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been forwarded to the Magistrate after completion of the investigation and the material collected by the investigating officer is under the gaze of judicial scrutiny, the High Court would do well to discipline itself not to undertake quashing proceedings at that stage in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

The learned counsel for the petitioners could not refute or controvert the assertion made by the learned State counsel that after investigation of the case report under Section 173 Cr.P.C alongwith the material collected during the course of investigation has been submitted to the Court of competent jurisdiction and the Court has already framed the charge against the petitioners. Concededly the order framing the charge was not challenged by the petitioners by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or that of Sessions Judge. Once the law provides alternative equally efficacious remedy for the redressal of the grievance of an aggrieved person, he cannot be allowed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

In Gurnam Singh''s case (supra) only the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. alongwith the relevant documents in support of the allegations annexed therewith was submitted, but no charge was framed and it was in that situation that it was held that it cannot be made a universal rule that proceedings cannot be quashed after the submission of the charge sheet in the Court and that proceedings can be quashed even after the submission of charge sheet. In the instant case, as noticed above the charge has already been framed. Therefore, the decision in Gurnam Singh''s case (supra) is not of any help to the petitioners.

For the reasons recorded above, the petition is dismissed.