Shiv Kumar and anr. vs Jaswant Singh and anr.

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Shiv Kumar and his brother Ram Kumar have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the complaint Annexure P. 3 and order of summoning Annexure PA.

The brief facts of the case which are necessary to assess, if the present is a fit case for quashing complaint and proceedings taken thereon, are that Shiv Kumar petitioner had taken on rent a shop belonging to Dheru Ram uncle of one Tilak Raj. There was a dispute regarding that shop between the landlord and the tenant and as the shop could not be got vacated, Tilak Raj nephew of Dheru Ram lodged a report with the police at Una on 1821989 against Shiv Kumar and others for offences under Sections 147/323 and 506 read with Section 140 Indian Penal Code, copy of the First Information Report being Annexure P. 2. On 131989 Shiv Kumar filed a complaint against Dheru Ram, Tilak Raj and others in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Una for offences under Sections 323, 147/448, 506 and 149 Indian Penal Code (Annexure P. 1.) Tilak Raj who was employed at Ferozepur in Life Insurance Corporation got filed A complaint by one Jaswant Singh against Shiv Kumar, his brother Ram Kumar and two others (Annexure P3) for offences under Sections 363, 265. 367, 323, 506/34 Indian Penal Code. Jaswant Singh alleged that on 3071989 when he was attending a function hosted by one Karam Chand the two petitioners, along with two others came there, caused injuries to him with a stick and a danda and then made him to leave the place in a car by show of dagger. The car Was stopped at a Railway gate which was closed where he raised an alram. When he raised hue and cry he was thrown out of the car by the petitioners. After recording preliminary evidence the petitioners were summoned to face trial for offences under Sections 323 and 506 Indian Penal Code while it was held that no case was made out against Vinod Kumar and Ram Pal Saini. The summoning order is AnnexurePA.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that Jaswant Singh filed a complaint at the instance of Tilak Raj who had already been summoned on a complaint filed by Sham Lal petitioner in a court at Una. The petitioners who were residents of village Kalsara, District Una did not know the complainant nor they had ever visited Ferozepur in their life time. While filing complaint Jaswant Singh complainant even refrained from giving his complete address and described himself as a resident of Ferozepur City. The allegations made in the complaint did not make out a prima facie case on the face of it and it was evident that the complaint was filed with some ulterior motive to put pressure on the petitioners so as to get the shop vacated from them. It was an abuse of process of the court and a case of gross injustice which was apparent on record.

It was argued on behalf of the complainant that for summoning an accused, court has to see if allegations made in the complaint made out a prima facie offence and it was not to go into the truthfulness of the allegations. It is to be decided by the Trial Court whether the allegations made in the complaint are baseless or not. It is correct that if prima facie a case is made out on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint, this court will not interfere in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but then each case has to be judged by its own facts and circumstances. The complaint copy of which is Annexure P3 does not disclose as to what grievance the petitioner has against the complainant so as to give him beating and threaten him with dire consequences. It is highly improbable that the petitioners would go to a place where the complainant was attending a function and numerous persons were present. It also cannot be believed that in the presence of whole of the gathering, the complainant was subjected to beating and was then taken away on the point of a dagger. The manner in which the complainant made his escape can hardly appeal to reason. The fact that he did not disclose his complete address too points out that the complaint was filed with some ulterior motive. In the case of State of Haryana and others Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, Judgments Today 1990 (4) SC 650 some categories of cases by way of illustrations where powers under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised are given and illustration 5 reads as follows :

"Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint 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."

In the instant case the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and inherently improbable as discussed above, so it is a fit case where the petition should be allowed.

As a result, I accept the petition, and set aside the complaint Annexure P3 and order of summoning Annexure P.4.