Karamjit Kaur and Others vs Dharam Singh

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have preferred this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint No. 266/1/03 dated 14.10.2003 titled as ''Dharam Singh vs. Karamjit Kaur and others under Sections 325, 452, 427, 504, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) read with Section 3(1)(x), 4 of the Prevention of Atrocities and S.T. Act, (the Act for short) (Annexure P-5) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 30.3.2006 (Annexure P-9). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that complainant was ordered to be evicted from the land belonging to the gram panchayat vide order dated 11.2.2003 (Annexure P-1). Penalty was also imposed on the complainant. The said order was upheld in appeal vide order dated 6.8.2003 (Annexure P-2). Police help was sought by the panchayat at the time of eviction of the complainant. Due to this reason, by levelling false allegations, complaint in question had been filed by the complainant against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that serious allegations had been levelled in the complaint. Complainant had led his evidence in support of his case. On 12.10.2003, all the petitioners, armed with deadly weapons, had trespassed into the house of the complainant and had inflicted injuries on the person of wife of the complainant. Petitioners had also destroyed the entire crop of the complainant.

Para Nos. 3 and 4 of the complaint (Annexure P-5) read as under:-

That on 2.10.2003 all the accused armed with deadly weapons tress passed into the house of the complainant where the lady members were present. The accused Karamjit Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh, Jasbir Singh, Balwinder Singh @ Binda son of Mohinder Singh, Ajmer Singh son of Ajit Singh, Gulshan Kumar ASI, PP Jamsher, Jalandhar and Gurmail Singh Inspector SHO, Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar remarked as "Haramjado Chamaro, Tusin Jamin the Kabja Chad Deo nain Tan Tuhanu Jano mar deange.

They started beating the lady members indiscriminately and accused gave injury at Karmi wife of Nama Ram who is the old mother of the complainant and she was got admitted in the civil hospital, Jalandhar. They then went to the field where the paddy crop was sown and was ready for harvesting. They all destroyed the entire crop causing loss to the Complainant to the tune of Rs. Six lacs. All the accused remarked "Chamaro Kheti Karna Tuhade Bus the Kam Nain Auro Kheti karn da koi Hak Nahin." All the accused also took away the articles mentioned in the list attached. The matter was reported to the police but no action was taken in the matter, and now again all the accused came to the house of the Complainant and told that in case the Complainant fails to withdraw the complaint they shall involve the Complainant in some other false case and shall done to death. The afore said Jasbir Singh wants to get the land though the land is meant for scheduled castes.

Thus, as per the complaint, occurrence in question is dated 2.10.2003.

Annexure P-1 is the copy of the order dated 11.2.2003 passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Jalandhar, whereby, complainant was ordered to be evicted from the land in question measuring 13 acres. Complainant was also directed to deposit three times of lease money i.e. Rs. 3,30,000/- with the gram panchayat within a period of 30 days. The said order was upheld in appeal by the Joint Development Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Punjab vide order dated 6.8.2003 (Annexure P-2).

A perusal of the reply filed by the complainant reveals that in a writ petition filed by the complainant, challenging the orders Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2, on 23.10.2003, the following order was passed:-

In so far as eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute is concerned, we do not find any merit in this petition. The period of lease, which even according to the case of the petitioner, was two years, has already expired. However, on the limited question, with regard to impugned orders imposing penalty upon the petitioner, we issue notice of motion for 12.12.2003.

Recovery of penalty is stayed meanwhile.

Thus, this Court in a writ petition filed by the complainant had only interfered qua the penalty part. A perusal of Annexure P-3 reveals that the District Magistrate vide order dated 12.9.2003 had allowed the police help to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer to take possession of the suit land in view of the orders Annexures P-1 and P-2. Warrants of possession had also been issued against the complainant.

A perusal of Annexure P-4 dated 2.10.2003 reveals that possession of the land in question was taken by the panchayat and the complainant had taken away all his articles on a tractor trolley. No resistance had taken place at that time. Thus, it is evident that the complaint in question has been filed by the complainant as a counter blast to the ejectment proceedings. The ejectment orders were upheld up to this Court as this Court vide order dated 23.10.2003 had held that no merit was found in the petition qua eviction of the complainant from the premises in dispute as the lease period had already expired.

Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No. 266/1/03 dated 14.10.2003 titled as ''Dharam Singh vs. Karamjit Kaur and others under Sections 325, 452, 427, 504, 506, 148, 149 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x), 4 of the Act (Annexure P-5) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 30.3.2006 (Annexure P-9) are quashed.