Deepak alias Natty vs Chander Kanta

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint Annexure P1 and summoning order Annexure P3 for offences under Section 323, 506 Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ambala.

The brief facts of the case as set up in the complaint Annexure P1 are that complainant Chander Kanta was married to Sarowar Kumar about 11 years back at Ambala City. She lived with her husband for about 8 years peacefully. Since she did not give birth to any child, Sarowar Kumar started maltreating her and threatened that he will not keep her with him unless she brought one V.C.R. and Rs. 40,000/ in cash. She was also harassed by her motherinlaw Ram Piari, sisterinlaw Sneh Lata and brotherinlaw Deepak. They threatened her to leave the house or she would be done to death. The matter was reported to Mahila Samiti, Delhi. After the decision of the Samiti her husband lived with her for two months at Delhi and then left for Ambala on receipt of a telephonic message that her sister was to be operated upon. On 30.7.1990 she came to Ambala to inquire about her husband who had not turned up since February, 90. She went to the house of her inlaws in Kanshi Nagar, Model Town, Ambala where she was given beating by the petitioners and was then thrown in the sullage water drain. She was saved by Rajni wife of Anil Kumar and other passersby. She was medically examined and then she lodged a complaint with the police on the basis of which case FIR No. 367 dated 1.8.1990 was registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. When she engaged a counsel for the prosecution of her case, she learnt that police had challaned only Deepak Kumar and then she filed the complaint.

The petitioners assailed the complaint and the summoning order on the ground that the matter was investigated by the police and challan was presented only against Deepak Kumar. The complaint had been filed after one year and two months of the occurrence and the version given in the complaint was contradictory to the version reported to the police. The allegations in the complaint were vague and unspecific as it was not disclosed as to what weapons were used nor any specific injury was attributed to any of the petitioners. The learned Magistrate did not apply his judicious mind while passing the summoning order on the sole testimony of the complainant without even examining the medicolegal report.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that earlier the complainant had reported the matter to the police and the police after thorough investigation presented chargesheet only against Deepak Kumar as no case was made out against the petitioners. In that State case even charge was framed on 16.5.1991 but the complaint was filed on 11.9.1991 i.e. four months after the framing of the charge. Delay was not explained by the complainant. It was further submitted that the allegations made at the time the matter was reported to the police, were at variance with the allegations made in the complaint and these inconsistencies and contradictory versions were sufficient to show that in fact the petitioners had not participated in the commission of any crime and the complaint was filed simply to harass them. It was an abuse of the process of the court. The contention of the learned counsel, however, is without merit. A perusal of the complaint shows that there are specific averments in para 2 that when the complainant came to Ambala on 30.7.1990 to enquire about her husband she was given beating by Ram Piari, Sneh Lata, Deepak and Youvraj. Immediately after the occurrence she was medically examined and she reported the matter to the police on the basis of which case FIR No. 367 was registered. The respondent has mentioned in the complaint that she learnt about the fact that only Deepak Kumar was challaned by the police when she engaged a counsel to prosecute the case on her behalf. It is nowhere alleged in the petition that the complainant had been appearing in the court and was aware that only Deepak had been challaned. The version given before the police was reiterated in the complaint and if there were inconsistencies in the two versions it was for the trial Court to determine and give findings regarding the effect of the same. In Annexure P1 it is mentioned that the complainant was given beating by ''dandas'' and ''lathies'' and then was thrown in drain of sullage water. The petitioners also threatened her with dire consequences. Even in the petition itself it is admitted that medicolegal report of the complainant showed abrasions on her person. So the trial Court considering the evidence on record was of the view that a prima facie case under Sections 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioners. The complaint is not liable to be quashed for want of definite and specific allegations nor the summoning order or suffers from any infirmity.

As a result I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.