Kashmir Singh vs State of Punjab

S.D. Bajaj, J.

After this court order dated November 9, 1990 delivered in Crl. Misc. No. 7939M of 1990, respondent Jagrup Singh filed a fresh Criminal complaint Annexure P6 against the five petitioners in the criminal court of competent jurisdiction at Muktsar on January 2, 1991. After recording preliminary evidence therein, learned trial Court made the summoning order Annexure P7 on August 26, 1991. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 13981M of 1991 has been filed over against by the five petitioners for quashing the complaint Annexure P6 and the summoning order Annexure P7 on the grounds, that the proceedings in the case now pending in the Court are nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and deserve to be quashed inter alia for the following reasons :

"(i) The present complaint is third in the series and fourth including the FIR relating to the same occurrence. Second complaint can be filed and entertained only in special circumstances as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in AIR 1962 SC 876.

(ii) The prosecution version was found to be false as on investigation it was discovered by the police that it was the complainant who actually attacked the accused side with his gun who snatched his gun and deposited the same in the Police Station. Even other facts alleged in the FIR were found to be false.

(iii) The impugned summoning order dated 26.8.1991 is a nonspeaking order and shows no application of mind by the learned Magistrate to show his satisfaction of a prima facie case having been made out against the petitioners/accused and the same is unsustainable in law as such. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the complaint dated 2.1.1991 Annexure P6, the summoning order dated 26.8.1991 Annexure P7 and all the proceedings in this case pending in the Court of Shri R.K. Tyagi, PCS, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar be quashed."

I have heard Shri H.S. Bhullar, Advocate, for the petitioners, Shri G.S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab for the respondentState assisted by Shri Rajinder Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant and perused the entire relevant material on record very carefully.

Referring to the observations made in Pramatha Nath Talukdar and another v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876, Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2432; Major General A.S. Gauraya and another v. S.N. Thakur and another, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 3 , Lekhraj Kukera and another v. Mrs. Rayman, 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 217 and Sohan Singh and others v. The State of Punjab and others, 1992(2) Recent Criminal Reports 423 learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that fresh complaint Annexure P6 is not competent on the same facts. None of the authorities cited envisages the bar talked of by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In Pramatha Nath Talukdar and another v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed per majority : "There is nothing in law which prohibits the entertainment of a second complaint on the same allegations when a previous complaint had been dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

In this view of the matter quashing petition No. 13981M of 1991 is rendered wholly without merit and is consequently dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents in the complaint before learned trial Court and petitioners in this Court would be entitled to urge before the learned trial Court while defending themselves that there is no ground for further proceeding with the complaint because the complainant has not stated therein any grounds detailing manifest error in the earlier order of dismissal of the complaint nor alleged that the order of dismissal of the previous complaint resulted in miscarriage of justice.