Gulzar Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is a criminal revision filed by the petitioner, Gulzar Singh against the order of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura dated 8.7.1996 whereby the respondentsaccused were acquitted of the offence alleged to have been committed by them under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code. The case briefly stated is as follows :

On 7.3.1992, a wireless message was received by ASI Sukhdev Singh in Police Station Banur that Labh Singh and Hardip Singh were lying admitted in A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura in injured condition and that some investigating officer be sent for proceeding into the matter. On receipt of wireless message, ASI Sukhdev Singh reached A.P. Jain Hospital, Rajpura and obtained medicolegal reports in respect of Labh Singh and Hardip Singh and recorded their statements. ASI Sukhdev Singh reached Village Ram Nagar with a view to verify the truth of the contents of what they had stated in their statements. After joining respectables and the Panchayat of the village in investigation, he came to the conclusion that on 6.3.1992, no occurrence had taken place resulting in injuries to Labh Singh and Hardip Singh. During investigation, he examined Ram Singh, Gurbaksh Singh and Lakhwinder Singh of village Jangpura who told him that on 6.3.1992, Labh Singh and Hardip Singh had fallen from scooter No. PBM7400 and they had received injuries due to that fall. ASI Sukhdev Singh found blood stains on the kachha portion in the east of the road. On inspection of the scooter, he found that there was dent in the front portion of the scooter. He found that no one had caused injuries to Labh Singh and Hardip Singh. After investigation, ASI Sukhdev Singh came to the conclusion that it was a false case being set up by Labh Singh and Hardip Singh. ASI Sukhdev Singh accordingly recorded report No. 14 in the daily diary register of P.S. Banur on 7.3.1992. SHO, P.S. Banur accordingly put in Calendera under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code against Labh Singh and Hardip Singh in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura.

Labh Singh and Hardip Singh were tried by the learned Magistrate for an offence punishable under Section 182 of Indian Penal Code. On the conclusion of the trial, he felt that it was not clear that Labh Singh and Hardip Singh had received injuries due to fall from scooter and if that was, it could not be assumed that the information furnished by them to the police was false. In these premises he acquitted Labh Singh and Hardip Singh vide his order dated 8.7.1992. Aggrieved from this order Gulzar Singh has come up in revision to this Court.

I have heard Shri Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Kawatra, AAG, Punjab and have gone through the record. In support of the version that Labh Singh and Hardip singh had fallen from scooter, Gurbakash Singh, Jit Singh, Ram Singh, Gulzar Singh and ASI Sukhdev Singh have been examined. Ram Singh PW4 stated that Labh Singh and Hardip Singh were taken to the Hospital by him. Gurbakash Singh PW2 stated that there were two persons on the scooter. They fell down from the scooter in his presence. He could not identify them. He had not known them. He could not tell their names. Jit Singh PW3 stated that Gulzar Singh did not cause injuries to Labh Singh and Hardip Singh in his presence. There is thus no evidence that Labh Singh and Hardip Singh had really sustained injuries due to fall from scooter. On the same facts, Labh Singh filed complaint under Sections 324, 326, 426, 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Gulzar Singh and others. Labh Singh was taken to the Hospital by one Harbans Singh as shown in Medico Legal Report, Ex. R2. If Ram Singh had taken him to the Hospital, his name would have figured in this Medico Legal Report. Doctor found incised wound on the bridge of nose bone deep. Rest of injuries found by him are either lacerated wounds or abrasions. It is doubtful whether incised wounds could be the result of fall from scooter.

On the same facts, Labh Singh is prosecuting Gulzar Singh and others through private complaint (ibid). Matter is thus subjudice before the Court. Any finding recorded here may prejudice so far as the findings in that complaint are concerned. Even otherwise, Gulzar Singh had no locus standi to come up in revision to this Court. Complaint under Section 182, Indian Penal Code could be filed by the public servant to whom false information was given or by that public servant to whom he was administratively subordinate as is clear from the provisions of Section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code. Intention of Section 182 of Indian Penal Code is that anybody furnishing false information to a public servant with a view to using his authority to the detriment of some one should be punished.

If Gulzar Singh is acquitted in the complaint (ibid) holding that the complaint was false to their knowledge, there may be cause to Labh Singh, and others to prosecute them for launching criminal prosecution against them maliciously.

Viewed from any angle, this Revision fails and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.