Inderjit alias Raj vs Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barnala

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal complaint dated 29.10.1994, a copy of which is annexure P1 placed on record and the summoning order dated 5.12.1994, a copy of which is annexure P2 on record. Respondent No. 1 Smt. Naresh Kumari, Advocate, Civil Courts, Barnala, District Sangrur filed the said criminal complaint dated 29.10.1994 against the petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala on the allegations, inter alia, that on 25.10.1994 she attended the Court of Naib Tehsildar Tapa in connection with the hearing of Mutation case No. 9832 of village Ugoke for and on behalf of one Makhan Singh, at Tapa, there is residence of the father''s sister of the complainant who on the aforesaid date went to the house of her father''s sister after attending the mutation case and at about 3.00 p.m. when she reached near a pond, the petitioners, seven in number, arrived there in a jeep No. PB290670 and surrounded the complainant. The petitioner Inderjit Singh @ Raj Singh took out a revolver from his pant pocket and put the same on the temple of the head of the complainant. The petitioners Pirthi Dass and Rajinderjit Singh took out knives and aimed towards the complainant. Petitioner. Bhagwat Dass caught hold of the hair of the complainant. Petitioner Harpal Kaur and Nirmala caught hold of her arms and twisted the same towards her back. Inderjit @ Raj commanded the complainant to hand over the money and ornaments which she was having at the time of the occurrence. Petitioner Surjit Kaur @ Lajo took out Rs. 2,000/ from the purse of the complainant and also snatched a golden ring from her hand weighing about 6 mashas gold. Her wrist watch of ''Titan'' make was also snatched. At the time of the commission of the occurrence witnesses Malkiat Singh, Dharampal Singh, Satpal Singh, Gurdial Singh, Jagdev Singh, residents of Village Sekha arrived there and on their intervention, the petitioner/accused left the complaintant and made their escape good from the place of occurrence with their respective weapons and the looted property. On the basis of this complainant and after perusing the statements of the complainant and witnesses, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala passed the order (Annexure P2) summoning the petitioners as accused under Sections 148, 149, 395 of India Penal Code.

The petitioners are seeking the quashing of the complaint and order of summoning on the ground that a false and baseless complaint has been lodged by the respondent after making a proper planning to harass the petitioners and the respondent is out on harassing the petitioners as she has implicated them in several criminal cases. It has been specifically alleged that the respondent is a practicing Advocate and she is taking the advantage of her position in harassing the petitioners. Reference has been made to the other criminal cases. Apart from the criminal cases, the respondentcomplainant has filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Barnala against the petitioners and two others persons. She has also initiated proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. against all major family members of the petitioners. The witnesses who have been cited in the complainant are common in all the other cases. The witnesses are close lieu tenants of respondent No. 2. The criminal case has been filed as a result of enmity between the respondent and the petitioners. It has been alleged that the whole dispute has started between the petitioners and the respondentcomplainant from the date when Shri Bhim Sain Bawa, brother of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and son of petitioner No. 1 was murdered on 31.5.1993. Petitioners No. 1 got FIR No. 70 registered on 1.6.1993 at Police Station Barnala against Mohinder Dass and others with whom respondent Naresh Kumari Bawa wife of Bhim Sain Bawa is siding at present. It was also mentioned that petitioner No. 3 had moved an application before S.S.P. Barnala, requesting for an enquiry to be conducted in the said murder case and it was also mentioned that the respondentcomplainant along with Shri Gurjit Singh, Advocate, practising in Civil Court Barnala are threatening to kill the family of petitioner No. 3. Petitioner No. 3 sought action against the respondent and Gurjit Singh, Advocate. The petitioners made a number of representations and requested to different authorities for taking action against the culprits. Some news item appeared in the newspaper ''Aaj Di Awaj'' dated 18.7.1994 regarding the said murder case wherein it was mentioned that the respondentcomplainant Smt. Naresh Bawa and other Advocate being influential persons wanted to save the real culprits. The present complaint has been filed with a view to harass and humiliate the family of petitioner No. 3. At lest ten cases are pending in different Courts against the family of the petitioners which have been filed either by the respondentcomplainant or got filed by her through some fictitious persons. The petitioners have alleged that no case is made out against them as has been alleged in the complaint. The learned Judicial Magistrate committed an error in law in summoning the petitioners in the said criminal case. The petitioners have alleged that this is a unique case where rustic and poor villagers are being harassed by filing false complaints in different Courts and same witnesses shown everywhere the this is, thus, a clear cut case of misuse of judicial process. Inderjit Singh @ Raj filed his affidavit in respect of the petition.

The petition was filed initially against the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala as respondent No. 1 and Smt. Naresh Kumari, Advocate Barnala as respondent No. 2. Today, at the time of hearing of the case, respondent No. 1 was deleted on the oral request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and as such, respondent No. 2 is the only respondent which remained in the case.

Notice of motion was issued to the respondentcomplainant who was duly served with the notice but no appearance was made on behalf of her.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the contents of the petition/affidavit and complaint and the order of summoning.

Learned counsel vehemently argued that the respondentcomplainant being a practising Advocate in Civil Courts, Barnala, District Sangrur has grossly misused her position by lodging false, frivolous and baseless criminal cases as well as civil case against the family of petitioner No. 3. The sole object of the respondent is to humiliate and harass the petitioners and she did not want to vindicate her any rights through the court of law. It was argued that considering the fact that in all the cases almost the same witnesses figure as the witnesses of the occurrence and it is categorically indicative of the collusion of the witnesses with the respondent for achieving the nefarious purpose of securing the trial of the petitioner in false cases and on false charges.

The law regarding the quashing of the FIR/Challan/criminal complaint has now been well settled by the apex Court. It is only in rarest among rare cases that the High Court should embark upon the exercise to see if the FIR, challan or the criminal complaint was such which deserve to be quashed as by assuming the averments mentioned therein no offence was shown to have been committed against the accused. It has also been laid down by the apex Court that the High Court will not embark upon the enquiry to test the genuineness or otherwise of the averments made in the FIR, challan or criminal complaint. The averments made in the FIR, challan or criminal complaint are to be considered prima facie as it is and if the averments made therein show prima commission of cognizable offences, the High Court will not quash the FIR challan or criminal complaint and will not scuttle the hearing/trial of the criminal case. Reference may be made to the judgment of the apex Court in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirukkural Parumal, 1995(2) Recent Criminal Reports 124 (SC) : 1995 SC Cases (Cri) 387 and State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, JT 1996(2) SC 488. In the background of the settled law, the averments made in the criminal complaint are to be examined. A perusal of the criminal complaint will go to show that the respondent has categorically levelled allegations about the commission of the offences under Sections 148/149/395 of Indian Penal Code in respect of which the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class has taken cognizance and ordered that the accused to be summoned to stand trial for the said offences. The allegations of malafide intention on the part of the petitioner cannot be per se assumed and particularly, in the absence of any material placed on record and from the mere fact that a number of cases have been instituted by the respondent against the petitioners and incidently in some of them the witnesses are common. It cannot be inferred that there is malicious intention on the part of the respondent to implicate the petitioners only with a view to harass and humiliate them rather than to vindicate her legal rights. It is a different matter that if at the trial the petitioners are able to place on record such material, then the trial court will, no doubt, take into consideration the plea of the petitioners. I do not find the material referred to by the petitioners as sufficient to quash the complaint or the summioning order. Resultantly, the petition is devoid of substance and is dismissed.