Ravinder Singh vs State of Punjab

V.K. Bali, J.—Ravinder Singh through present petition filed by him under Section. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of the First Information Report (Annexure P-5) and proceedings taken thereafter as also order dated 6-9-1994 (Annexure P-6) vide which sub-Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dasuya, charged the petitioner and others Under Sections 148, 447, 448, 323 read with Sections 149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The facts as culled out from the petition reveal that land measuring 486 Kanal 6 Marias located at Village Sariana was owned by Smt. Kirpa Devi widow of Laxman Singh. She executed a will in favour of Daulat Ram and after her death Daulat Ram became owner of the land. After his demise, the land devolved on Kashmir Singh and others. Kashmir Singh aforesaid sold his share of land measuring 32 Kanals comprised in Khewat No. 81 to number of persons including Dev Raj and Ram Pal. This sale was in the year 1973. The vendees Dev Raj and Ram Pal, it is the case of the petitioner, were getting their land cultivated from Ram Singh and Sham Singh sons of Shankar alias Joginder. In June 1993, Jagjit Singh son of Sukhdev Singh co-accused of the petitioner purchased land comprised in Rectangle No. 125 from Dev Raj and Ram Pal and possession of the said land was delivered to Jagjit Singh vendee. It is further the case of the petitioner that tenants Ram Singh and Sham Singh had delivered actual physical possession of the said land comprised in Rectangle No. 125 to Jagjit Singh and also executed an affidavit dated 24-6-1993 in his favour in the court of Naib Tehsildar, Talwara. Even though the possession was delivered in the manner aforesaid, it is further the case of the petitioner that Kulwant Singh husband of Daljit Kaur and others filed a civil suit on 13-5-1992 against Jagjit Singh seeking permanent injunction. A civil suit was filed against Ram Singh and Sham Singh, tenants on the land in dispute and 12 other co-sharers. The complainant was arrayed as pro forma defendant in the said suit. Kulwaat Singh also filed an application for grant of interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC but the Sub Judge before whom the matter came up for hearing granted only status quo. However, after filing the written statement by Jagjit Singh, the application filed by kulwant Singh under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was dismissed. Dissatisfied, Kulwant Singh preferred an appeal against the order of the Sub Judge declining injunction before the Additional District Judge,, Hoshiarpur which too was dismissed on 5-11-1993. It requires to be mentioned that the F.I.R. subject matter of quashing before this Court was lodged by the wife of Kulwant Singh, namely, Daljit Kaur. After the appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Kulwant Singh got the suit, dismissed as withdrawn on 14- 12-1993. The petitioner further pleads that affter obtaining an order of status quo from the learned Sub Judge, Kulwant Singh and his wife had started interfering with the possession of Jagjit Singh but when the matter was reported to the police, instead of taking action against Kulwant Singh and his wife, the police started harassing Jagjit Singh, petitioner and his co-accused. The complaint lodged by Jagjit Singh against the complainant and her husband has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. It is further the case of the petitioner that he became victim of police excesses as he had reported the matter regarding the illegal encroachment of the land that he had donated for the construction of the police quarters in the year 1965 and he had lodged a complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur regarding illegal encroachment of said land by Dr. Prem Nath Sarpanch of Hajipur in active connivance with then S.H.O. of Police Station, Hajipur and B.M. Sharma, D.S.P. Mukerian. Prem Nath constructed wall on this land with a view to sell the same. He also obtained the earnest money to the tune of Rs. two Lacs. In the first instance the petitioner requested the S.H.O. Police Station, Hajipur and thereafter D.S.P. Mukerian for taking action against Prem Nath but when his complaints evinced no interest with the S.H.O. and D.S.P., he reported the matter to the Senior Superintendent of Police. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur immediately took action in the matter and the illegal encroachment was removed and S .H.O. was ordered to be sent to Police Lines and D.S.P. Brij Mohan was reprimanded. Petitioner further avers that both these officials felt offended and it is on account of their grudge only that F.I.R. No. 37 dated 15-8-1993 came to be registered against the petitioner and others. The petitioner clamoured for justice before Inspector General of Police (Crimes) by initiating independent enquiry but when he found that no action is being taken, he filed the present petition.

Before the matter is proceeded any further, it shall be useful to see the allegations made against the petitioner in the F.I.R., the subject matter of challenge before this Court. It reads thus :-

"Statement of Daljit Kaur w/o Kulwant Singh, Caste Sunar resident of Bela Sariana P.S. Hajipur,, Aged 38 years Dadad Mohalla Nai Abadi,, Phagwara states that I am resident of Phagwara and my husband''s land is situated in Bala Sariana. I was doing household job with my sister in law Kamaljit Kaur wife of Jagjit Singh at my house. At about 2.00 P. M. 15/16 persons came on tractors Armed with Gandasi, Datars, Kirpans from Dhade ''Katwal to the land which was demarcated few days earlier and this land was reported to be mine. Ajit Singh son of Bhan Singh Saini, resident of Baja Chak, P.S. Dasuya and Pritam Singh son of Jagat Singh r/o Bahgala P. S. Mukerian entered and started driving their tractors. The third tractor was carrying tools and implements for doing bore. Some persons started digging a Pit with kahis. Some other people namely Pritam Singh son of Shri Bhan Singh Adhrami, resident of Devi Dass P. S. Mukerian with Gandasi, Harbans Lal son of Kishan Chand Adharmi r/o Pangala with Daang, Ramesh Kumar son of Tarsem Lal Jair r/o Kamal Devi with Gandasi, Lakhwinder Singh with Charan Dass Adharmi r/o Devi Dass P.S. Mukerian with Kahis,, Hardeep Singh son of Shri Ravinder Singh r/o Dhoda Katwal with Datar, Sukhdev Singh son of Hargan Singh r/o Dhoda Katwal with Datar, Sukhdev Singh son of Hargan Singh r/o Dhade Katwal with Kirpan, Jagjit: Singh son of Sukhdev Singh r/o Dhade Katwal with datar came towards my house by making lalkara immediately affter they reach,, Jagjit Singh, Sukhdev Singh caught hold of me from my long hair and started giving me fist blows, meanwhile my husband''s brother''s wife came forward to rescue me. Sukhdev Singh gave her a push and threw her down and started abusing with lalkara that catch them so that they could not go alive. Teach them a lesson of getting the land demarcated and insulted me. In the meantime Hardeep Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Harbans Lal, Sukhdev Singh lifted my Darani (Husband''s brother''s wife) from arms and legs and tried to throw under the tractor. At my hue and cry, our servant, Gurmail Singh, Harjinder Singh, Caste Julaha r/o Bela Sariana and Raj Kumar r/o Bala Sariana who were at a short distance from the house came to rescue us and our servant were also beaten by the said accused. There were other accused also, the names of whom I do not know. I can recognise them if they appear before me. The bone of contention is that the adjoining land to this land which belongs earlier to Dev Raj has been purchased by Jagjit Singh s/o Sukhdev Singh r/o Dhande Katwal and we have purchased this land earlier and doing self cultivation for the past 7/8 years. Jagjit Singh son of Sukhdev Singh r/o Dhade Katwal wants to take possession of this land forcibly. Sant Ravinder Singh son of Kesar Singh r/o Dhade Katwal advises Jagjit Singh etc. to take possession of this land. The above all the persons have assaulted us with common intention of forcibly taking the possession of the land after taking the advice of Sant Ravinder Singh. All the accused at our hue and cry ran away with their respective weapons from the spot and my husband''s brother''s wife after saving herself was going to inform the police station, Hajipur when you on the way met me and I have made my statement to you. Legal action may be taken.

Attested Sd/- Dalijit Kaur (English) Ram Chand ASI 14-8-1993.

The perusal of the F.I.R.reproduce dinextenso above would clearly reveal that the dispute is with regard to land sold by Dev Raj which has been purchased by Jagjit Singh, the co-accused of the petitioner. It is the case of the complainant that this very land was purchased by her earlier and she alongwith her husband was doing self cultivation for the last 7/8 years whereas Jagjit Singh who later purchased this land wanted to take forcible posses- sion. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the only allegation against him is that he used to advice Jagjit Singh and others for taking possession of the land, it is not the case of the complainant Daljit Kaur that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he was in any manner interested in the land himself.

The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that in so far as petitioner is concerned, no offence is made out against him even if the F.I.R. is believed in its entiriety. His basic contention is that advising some one to take possession would not fall within the mischief of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. That apart, it is further .being argued that the name of the petitioner has just been tagged up with this case with a view to involve him in some matter as he had reported illegal encroachment of land donated by him for construction of police quarters.

Mrs. Lisa Gill, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, however, contends that the truth or otherwise of the prosecution version can be better appreciated after the prosecution leads its evidence and it is too premature a stage to hold that the petitioner has been involved in this case on account of extraneous considerations as also that when report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. has been submitted to the Court, the matter being under scrutiny of the trial Judge, no occasion arises for quashing the FIR against the petitioner. For her later contention, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, .

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. It is by now well settled that when the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused or that when the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, this Court under inherent powers vested in it by Section 482 Cr.P.C. can always quash the complaint of FIR, as the case may be. There is no necessity to cite any precedent for the aforesaid proposition of law but if at all required, reference may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, .

The perusal of the FIR, that has been reproduced in ex-tenso in the earlier part of the judgment,. reveals that insofar as petitioner is concerned, he is only said to have advised others to take forcible possession. There is no necessity at all to go into the question as to who were in possession as it might prejudice either of the parties at the time of trial. Suffice it, however, to say and that too only for the purpose of disposing of this petition, that the Civil Court had refused injunction to the complainant or her husband, as the case may be, and an appeal preferred against that order was also dismissed and it is thereafter that the civil suit was withdrawn. If,. perhaps the matter was to be looked from that angle, the core of allegations even made against other co- accused, may not look even prima facie plausible but as said above, I do not wish to go into that question in this petition and it shall be for the trial Judge to examine this aspect of the case and to arrive at an independent conclusion after recording evidence.

However, insofar as petitioner is concerned, the allegation against him is only of conspiracy Concededly, he was not the one who, according to the prosecution versions, had gone to the spot along with his co-accused so as to dispossess the complainant and others. Conspiracy has been defined in Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code. When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. The apex Court in P.K. Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala, held that the ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which by itself may not be illegal. Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. But if those circumstances are compatible also with the innocence of the accused persons then it cannot be held that the prosecution has successfully established its case. Even if some acts are proved to have been committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. It was further held that an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inferences which are not supported by cogent evidence.

As mentioned above, the petitioner had only advised, even as per the prosecution version, his co- accused to take forcible possession

This Court is conscious of the law that normally when challan has been put in Court, the complaint or the FIR should not be quashed and it should be left to the discretion of the trial Court to determine the matter after appreciating the evidence but it is also well settled that when reading of the FIR, even if believed in its entirety, does not constitute any offence, it will be an abuse of the process of Court to compel a citizen to go through an agonising trial which sometimes lasts several years. Neither the counsel appearing for the complainant nor the counsel defending the matter on behalf of the State has been able to point out as to what interest the petitioner has either with the land in dispute or with either of the parties i.e. whether he is enimical to the complainant party or is so friendly with the accused that he might have evinced some interest to advise his co-accused to take forcible possession. Looked from this angle, the assertion of the petitioner that he is made a victim of frame-up at. the hands of the police officers, whom he had annoyed, cannot be easily brushed aside. It may be made clear that this Court is not giving any finding with regard to enmity of police officers against the petitioner and whatever observations, are being made, they are simply with a view to decide this case.

In totality of the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that petitioner should be protected and that can only be done by quashing the FIR against him. For the reasons recorded above, FIR subject matter of challange before this Court, in so far as petition is concerned, is quashed. This petition is allowed accordingly.