Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab

Dr.Sarojnei Saksena, J.

The petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution, for quashing FIR No. 43 dated May 3, 1993, under Sections 435/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P1) and all consequent proceedings thereon.

The facts of the case are that on May 3, 1993, Ajmer Singh son of Gurmukh Singh, Jat, resident of village Fatehpur Therri, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar and others lodged a complaint that they are in possession of agricultural land and had sown wheat crop in their fields. When the crop was ripe, the accused persons/petitioners at about 3 p.m. set fire to their standing crop. At that time they were armed with deadly weapons. On the basis of this FIR Annexure P1, offence under the aforesaid sections were registered. After concluding the investigation challan was put up before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar. After considering the challan papers, the said Magistrate has framed charges under Sections 435/506/148/149 IPC against the accused persons/petitioners on July 28, 1994. The petitioners filed a revision petition against the said order of framing of the charges, which was dismissed by Shri V.C. Rajput, Addl. Sessions Judge, Ropar, vide order dated December 24, 1994.

The petitioners'' contention is that Civil Suit No. 347 of 1989 (instituted on September 23, 1992) is pending in the Court of Shri Harminder Singh, Subordinate Judge IInd Class, Kharar, which is filed by Ajmer Singh and Sohan Singh sons of Gurmukh Singh against Didar Singh son of Nika Singh, Gurdev Singh, Bhupinder Singh sons of Jawahar Singh, Kesar Singh, Swaran Singh and Nachhattar Singh sons of Gurmukh Singh, residents of village Fatehpur Theri, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, for permanent injunction. This suit was decided on March 17, 1993. Copy of the judgment is filed at Annexure 13. Petitioner''s learned counsel contended that in this judgment the Civil Court has held that Ajmer Singh and Sohan Singh sons of Gurmukh Singh are not in possession of the disputed land. Hence, the relief of permanent injunction was declined and the suit was dismissed. On the basis of this decree of the Civil Court, the petitioners'' learned counsel further contended that as the Civil Court has held that the complainant Ajmer Singh is not in possession of the disputed agricultural land, the question of setting on fire to the standing crops on the land which is alleged to be in possession of the complainant, does not arise. Hence the charges have been wrongly framed and on that basis the FIR and consequent proceedings are liable to be quashed.

Learned Assistant AdvocateGeneral, Punjab relying on Dharam Pal v. Smt. Ram Shri, 1993(1) Recent Criminal Reports 696 : JT 1993 (1) SC 61 , objected that as the petitioners have already filed a criminal revision against the order of framing of the charges and it is dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, they have no legal right to file a second revision in the garb of section 482 Cr.P.C. which is clearly barred under section 397(3) Cr.P.C.

To meet this contention, the petitioners'' learned counsel has relied on Hamir Singh v. Bhag Singh, 1995(2) RecentCR 1 , wherein it is held that if the revision is dismissed by the Court of Session, the provisions of Section 397 Cr.P.C. do not constitute or operate as a bar to exercise by the High Court of its inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. It further held that the High Court is justified to interfere with finding of fact recorded by the revisional court where the very basis of decision of subordinate revisional court did not exist.

A plain perusal of the Civil Court''s decree Annexure P3 makes it clear that plaintiffs Ajmer Singh and Sohan Singh are held to be in possession of Khasra Nos. 1811(80), 12(80) and 13(80), though on a different count they were nonsuited. In the petition under consideration the petitioners have clearly mentioned in para No. 1 that petitioner No. 3 is in possession of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 6/16/2(413), 17/1(16), 17/2 (38), 18/2(68), 24(712), 25/1(67) and 25/2(15), thus. This assailment is not sustainable that as the complainantSohan Singh is not in possession of any agricultural land in the said village, he could not have lodged the complaint Annexure P1 stating that he is in possession of agricultural land on which his crop is standing, to which the petitioners have set fire illegally.

In Dharam Pal''s case (supra) the Apex Court has clearly held that section 397(3) bars a second revision petition by the same party. Inherent powers under section 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. Even in Hamir Singh''s case (supra) a single Bench of this Court has held that this power under section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirukkural Perumal, 1995(2) Recent Criminal Reports 124 : JT 1995(3) SC 166 the Apex Court has held that the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR or complaint on the basis of evidence collected during investigation only while dealing with petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court has cautioned that the High Court is not justified in evaluating such evidence which is yet to be produced before the trial Court. Such power of quashment should be exercised sparingly by the High Court.

In this case the charges have already been framed against the petitioners and the trial has commenced. It is a question of fact whether on May 3, 1993, complainant Ajmer Singh was in possession of agricultural land on which his crop was standing, which was flamed by the petitioners and at that time they committed the alleged other offences also under Section 506/148/149 IPC for which they are facing trial before the trial Court. In view of these facts, I found that this petition is not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly.