Dev Raj Garg vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

This is a criminal revision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Dev Raj Garg and his wife Mst. Usha alias Asha Garg, against the State of Punjab and one Mal Singh son of Puran Singh praying for the quashment of the complaint dated 20.2.1996 alongwith the order dated 15.4.1996 vide which the learned Magistrate summoned both the petitioners as accused in order to face trial for the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners under Sections 342, 504 and 506 IPC.

Mal Singh son of Puran Singh filed a complaint against the present petitioners under Sections 342, 344, 347, 388, 500 and 506 IPC and material allegations of the complaint are contained in para No. 8 of the said complaint which is reproduced as under :

"That on 19.2.1996 at about 10/11 A.M. that I was getting repair to wall from Masin then Usha accused started to abuse Sarabjit Kaur sisterinlaw of the complainant. At the asking of the complainant from the accused why it is so, she replied that previously Sarabjit Kaur had abused her. The complainant said that this matter should be reported to him but Usha accused even started to abuse the complainant. She further said that S.P. and D.C. etc. bow before her and her husband and why should I come to a poor peon like you. This is against my dignity and further said that unless she succeeds in beating your sisterinlaw Sarabjit Kaur and involve your sons in Bhuki and Opium she will not take rest. Then you will feel our position and then what to talk of supplying whisky even the milk of the sparrows will be supplied to us by you. In addition to this the secret of one officer must be brought in our notice by you. Usha accused said to her husband accused No. 1 that today both the complainant and his wife along with sisterinlaw are involved in Opium and Bhuki after calling them in police station to the Police Officers. The accused No. 1 got me arrested in the Police Station telling false story against me and I was kept there for the entire day in the Police Station Sangrur. When Jagdish Singh Kohli, Press Reporter went to the Police Station for releasing the complainant, the police asked him that first of all a compromise be made with Dev Raj otherwise they will be treated to same manner whatever is said to us by Dev Raj. Therefore, Shri Kohli accompanied with the complainant went to Dev Raj as asked by the police. As soon as the talk of settlement (compromise) started, the accused immediately spoke in anger that what sort of settlement is to be done with a peon of two paise price. In case the complainant admits our demands then we can forgive him; as regards the settlement etc. nothing is to be done. At this Kohli has said that even a peon is a Raja in his own house, do respect and claim it afterwards. At this the accused said to Kohli that you have to pick up the thorns instead of him. Nobody knows you except myself. All the Officers of the District and Police Officers are in my pocket. If we do a phone to the Police they will take you in the Police Station and tell you what sort of Press Reporter and you will be involved in such a big case, in which you will be punished for fifteen days in addition to penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs. They threatened Kohli that you run away from this place if you want to live in this world. In addition to this the peon and his family members should understand that if they want to pull on with their life and are not prepared to go to the Jail, then all the talks related earlier should be admitted by them. They also know that what will happen with their life if not agreed to the talks of the accused. We have told them about this matter in the presence of Labh Singh Bhinder and other witnesses present on the spot."

After examining the complainant and his witnesses Shri Labh Singh, Advocate and Jagjit Singh Kohli, Press Reporter, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners under Sections 504, 342 and 506 IPC.

Challenge in the present petition has been given both to the complaint of the complainant and to the order of the learned Magistrate on the ground that the complaint did not disclose the commission of the offence for which the petitioners had been summoned by the learned Magistrate and that the order passed by the Magistrate had been passed in a mechanical manner. In support of his contention, Shri R.L. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an authority of Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as Punjab National Bank v. Surinder Singh, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1815, in which it was held that before summoning the accused, the Magistrate should consider the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and the process of summoning the accused should not be issued mechanically on the basis of the complaint filed as vendetta to harass the persons.

I have considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and I am of the considered opinion that the contentions raised by the learned counsel are devoid of any merit.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. lays down that "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

A perusal of the above provisions would show that inherent powers by this Court can be exercised in limited spheres when this Court is of the opinion that exercise of such powers has become necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. If, however, the contents of the complaint disclose an offence and the Magistrate is prima facie satisfied with the commission of that offence, it becomes his duty to summon the accused and issue the process as contemplated under Section 220 read with Section 204 Cr.P.C. In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not supposed to embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are material to be established by the complainant or not. As it has been stated above, if the allegations are specific and not vague and those allegations prima facie disclose the commission of offence then the High Court should not grab the powers of the Criminal Court which alone is competent to decide whether the offence has been constituted or not and if so constituted, by whom that have been committed. Of course, this Court would interfere if the allegations made out in the complaint are vague and when this Court comes to the conclusion that the proceedings has been launched against the accused as an abuse of process of law.

Reverting to the facts in hand, the allegations of the complaint prima facie disclose that the accused are guilty of offences for which they have been summoned by the Magistrate. Section 204 of the Code of Criminal procedure lays down that "If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he would certainly issue the process as applicable to a summon case or to a warrants case. At the juncture of summoning the accused, he has to see prima facie whether the accused should be summoned to face the trial or not. The evidence is not to be scrutinised in detail. The Magistrate is supposed to satisfy himself prima facie and this aspect can be taken into account after going through the allegations made in the complaint which allegations should be prima facie supported from the statements of the witnesses examined by the complainant. The impugned order would show that the learned Magistrate after recording the statements of the complainant and his witnesses came to the conclusion that the accused should be summoned to face the trial for specific offences. Still it is open to the Magistrate under Section 245 Cr.P.C. to discharge the accused if he after taking of the evidence referred to in Section 244 comes to the conclusion that no case against the accused has been made out which if unrebutted warrants their conviction. In 1996(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 255 Ravinder v. State, it was held that if the allegations of the complaint disclose that accused was responsible for the commission of harassment or that they had given threats etc. and those allegations are not absurd and inherently improbable and those allegations are clear and unambiguous and disclose the cognizance of offence, mere denial of those allegations on the part of the petitioner are not sufficient to quash the FIR/complaint. The ratio of this authority is fully applicable to the facts in hand. In 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 806 : 1996(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 321 Bachan Singh v. Harpreet Kaur, while interpreting the provisions of Section 204 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court after relying the ratio of the Supreme Court Authority reported as 1992 Cri.L.J. 377 K.M. Methew v. State of Kerala, came to the conclusion that it was open to the accused to plead before the Magistrate that process against him ought not to have been issued. The Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried. It is his judicial discretion. No specific provision is required for the Magistrate to drop his proceedings or rescind the process. The order issuing the process is an interim order and not a judgment. It can be varied or recalled. The fact that the process has already been issued is no bar to drop the proceedings if the complaint on the very face of it does not disclose any offence against the accused. Further this Court held in its judgment of

Bachan Singh v. Harpreet Kaur, 1996(1) Recent Criminal Reports 806 (supra), that since an alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners before the judicial magistrate, the High Court should be reluctant to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts in hand. It is not established prima facie on the record that the allegations of the complaint against the present petitioners to wreak his personal vengeance. Reliance can also be placed on R.K. Jain v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others, 1996(2) Recent Criminal Cases 429, wherein it was held that once the complaint disclosed an offence and brings out clear infringement of certain provisions of law tantamounting to a criminal offence, it renders the accused liable for prosecution. The court has no further jurisdiction to go into merits or demerits of the complaint or conviction or otherwise at that stage. 9. In view of the above, this court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly.