Raju Timirharan vs State of Punjab

G.S. Chahal, J.—Raju Timirharan petitioner seeks the quashing of First Information Reports No. 7 dated 14.2.1990 u/ss 324/323/452 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Civil Lines Patiala, at the instance of Smt. Saroj Sirhind, respondent 2 and the proceeding taken thereunder.

The petitioner is the son of sister of Dr. Parshotam Kumar, husband of complainant, Smt. Saroj Sirhindi, D. Parshotam Kumar''s father Brij Bhushan Lal owned a house in Yadvindra Colony, Patiala. Dr. Parshotam Kumar and his wife Saroj Sirhindi were living in the first floor of the said house. Brij Bhushan Lal brought a civil suit against Dr. Parshotam Kumar and his wife for mandatory injunction, directing them to vacate the house and hand over possession thereof on the basis that he was a licensee and the licence had since been revoked. The suit was decreed in favour of Brij Bhushan Lal and the appeal against that judgment and decree was also dismissed. However, regular Second Appeal is pending in this court. Pending the civil suit, it had been agreed between the parties to the suit that a passage of 5''7" wide would be left open for use by both the parties. The petitioner is living with Brij Bhushan Lal in the ground floor of the said house which infact is not liked by Dr. Parshotam Kumar and his wife, respondent 2. They had also been accusing the petitioner and his mother for having prompted Brij Lal for disinheriting them and terminating their licence. They had, on a number of times, threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. On 14.2.1990 Saroj Sirhindi had a fall by slipping and received minor injuries. She lodged a false report with the Police accusing the petitioner of causing her injuries. He, thus, seeks the quashing of that FIR.

At this stage, the allegation in the FIR may be noted. According to the statement made by respondent 2 Smt. Saroj Sirhindi at about 9.40 a.m. on 14.2.90, she had come out of the ground floor latrines and was washing her hands at the watertap when the petitioner, Raju Timirharan attacked her with a bamboostick, raising a Lalkara that she had uprooted her plants. Meanwhile, her husband Dr. Parshotam Kumar arrived at the spot. Some persons of the Mohalla also collected there. Raju Timirharan abused Dr.Parshotam Kumar and made a remark that he would shoot him in the University. She was then taken to the Emergency Ward, Rajindra Hospital, and after getting First Aid, she went to the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate in connection with a case relating to newspapers.

The report was lodged by respondent Smt. Saroj Sirhindi at 11.30 a.m. She was then sent for medical examination and the doctor found the following injuries on her person :

Incised wound 3.0 cm x 0.4 cm in size Depth 0.4 cm over the upper part of left upper eyerlid. Fresh bleeding present.

Abrasion over the front of nose, in the middle, size 0.8 cm x 0.5 cm fresh bleeding.

Abrasion over the left half of upper lip, in the middle, size 0.5 cm x 0.4 cm fresh bleeding present.

Injury No.1 was reported to be caused with a sharpedged weapon and the other injuries by blunt weapon. These were caused within 6 hours. After the receipt of the medicolegal report, the Police registered a case u/ss 323/324/45, IPC.

In the return filed the factum of previous litigation is admitted. A claim was made that Dr. Parshotam Kumar was not only a licencee. The passing of the decree and its failure at the appellant stage were also admitted. A reference was also made regarding sending of some false telegrams by the petitioner. Respondent 2 also gave details of her achievements in the field of journalism.

Admittedly, the petitioner is living in the ground floor with his maternal grand father and the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the ground floor of that house. It could hardly be a case of criminal trespass.

The allegation made in the statement before the Police was that the respondent 2 had been attacked by the petitioner with a bamboo stick injury No.1 in the medicolegal report is, however, described to have been caused with a sharpedged weapon, with fresh bleeding. This injury could not, thus, be caused with a bamboostick and the probabilities are that this injury was subsequently fabricated to implicate the petitioner.

The petitioner admittedly visited the hospital for first aid, but at that stage, no medicolegal examination was carried out and she felt satisfied with the First Aid treatment.

Immediately after the occurrence, she did not go to the Police Station, but instead went to the Court for attending to same case relating to newspaper. It is, however, not shown that she was a party to that litigation.

When she visited the Police Station, she was accompanied by her husband Dr.Parshotam Kumar and the chances are of her husband having helped her in manufacturing a criminal version. Admittedly, there has been civil litigation. The petitioner is living with her maternal grand father Brij Bhushan Lal. Admittedly, Dr Parshotam Kumar had strained relation with his father and the petitioner is eyesore for him and his wife. Considering the facts discussed above, the criminal prosecution has been brought with an oblique motive to pressurise Brij Bhushan Lal to arrive at some settlement in the civil litigation which is pending in this Court. The medical evidence contradicts the version put forth by the respondents. The only witness cited in the FIR is Dr. Parshotam Kumar who is stated to have raised a Raula although it is stated that some persons of the Mohalla had also collected, but no names were specified. Such a criminal charge can only end in acquittal. In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & another v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & others, 1988(1) Recent C.R. 565, their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines with regard to the quashing of complaint at the trial stage as under :

"The legal Position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court, is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and therefore no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

In the present case, the launching of the prosecution is clearly for an oblique motive and the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak. No useful purpose would be served with the continuation of the proceedings. I here by allow the criminal miscellaneous and quash the FIR and the consequent proceedings taken thereunder.

JUDGMENT Accordigly.