Jagdeep Singh and Others vs Lokinder Singh

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This is a petition under Section482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 27.09.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palampur, in Criminal Case No. 421-1/2011. The facts, in brief, are that respondent had filed complaint under Sections 500, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate issued process against the petitioners on 27.09.2011 for offences punishable under Sections 500, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The order dated 27.09.2011 has been assailed by the petitioners on the grounds that respondent is inimical towards the petitioners, the bare perusal of the complaint indicates that the learned Magistrate has committed error in issuing process against all the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 500, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The respondent has stated his grievances in paragraph -7 of the complaint which are reproduced as under :

That on 6th July, 2011 at about 9.45 A.M. While the complainant was sitting in the litigation shed and discussing with his Clients at Palampur Courts, the Accused No. 2 & 3 started hurling wordy dual and called the complainant ''chor'', ''Badmash'' and later on, the Accused No. 1 also joined the company of Accused No. 2 and 3. Earlier also the Accused No. 1 to 4 had assaulted the complainant and case was registered against the Accused. The accused also hurled threats to finish the life of the Complainant and his family members.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the stand taken in the petition. It has been summited that no case is made out against the petitioners No. 1,4 and 5 inasmuch as in the complaint, there is no allegation against the petitioners No. 1, 4 and 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the petition. The respondent in the complaint has alleged that petitioners No. 2 and 3 called the complainant ''chor'', ''Badmash''. It has also been alleged that later on petitioner No. 1 joined the company of petitioners No. 2 and 3, but there is no averment that petitioners No. 1, 4 and 5 on 06.07.2011 abused the respondent and threatened him.

It has been submitted that petitioners No. 1 to 4 had earlier assaulted the respondent and the case was registered against them. It has also been stated that petitioners hurled threats to finish the life of the complainant and his family members, but in the complaint neither any specific accused has been named for hurling threats to finish the life of the respondent and his family members nor it has been stated that when the petitioners hurled threats to finish the life of the respondent and his family members. In the complaint, there are no allegations against the petitioners No. 1, 4 and 5 for summoning them for offences punishable under Sections 500, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The scope of complaint cannot be enlarged in preliminary evidence. The foundation for summoning under Sections 500, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC is missing in the complaint against the petitioners No. 1, 4 and 5, therefore, the learned Magistrate has erred in issuing process against the petitioners No. 1, 4 and 5 for offences punishable under Sections 500, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The petition is allowed. The impugned order so far it relates to summoning of petitioners No. 1, 4 and 5 for offences punishable under Sections 500, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, is quashed. There is no infirmity in summoning the petitioners No. 2 and 3 for offences punishable under Sections 500, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The petition is accordingly disposed of. The pending application is also disposed of.