Sulakhan Singh vs State of Haryana

Iqbal Singh, J.

The petitioners, by way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seek quashing of FIR (Annexure P2), order framing of charge (Annexure P3) and the charge sheet (Annexure P4).

A case under Sections 148/149/307/302/323, Indian Penal Code and 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act was registered against 17 persons at Police Station, Tohana on the statement of Paramjit Singh (petitioner No. 3) vide Annexure P1. Four persons were not Challaned by the police as a result of which petitioner Paramjit Singh filed an application under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning them. However, the learned Sessions Judge, vide order dated 9.3.1996 ordered the summoning of two persons, namely, Zora Singh and Darshan Singh and declined to summon the remaining two, namely, Lakhwinder Singh and Satinder Singh. It has been alleged in the petition that the police, in connivance with the opposite party, registered a cross case on the statement of Zora Singh (respondent No. 2) vide F.I.R. Annexure P2. The learned Sessions Judge ordered the framing of charge vide his order dated 7.3.1996 (Annexure P3) and the charge was framed vide Annexure P4. According to the petitioners, no prima facie case is made out against them as the dispute was regarding possession of land of Gram Panchayat which was in possession of the petitioners and the Civil Court had confirmed the order of status quo on 21.12.1995 which was granted earlier on 3.5.1995, in favour of the petitioners.

In the return filed by the respondentState, the registering of cross case was admitted and it was stated that the same was registered on the statement of Zora Singh (respondent No. 2). Framing of the charge is also admitted. Similarly, passing of status quo order regarding possession of the land by the Civil Court was also admitted, but it was stated that the Civil Court had not authorised Joginder Singh (petitioner) to forcibly enter into the land of Gram Panchayat. It has been further averred that neither the FIR nor the order regarding framing of charge and the charge sheet are liable to be quashed inasmuch as one of the petitioners, namely, Joginder Singh with the connivance of Canal Patwari, got prepared a fabricated Nehri Girdawri of the land in dispute and got a status quo order from the Civil Court on 3.5.1995 by producing that Nehri Girdawri. The petitioners were never in possession of the suit land. Rather, the Gram Panchayat was owner in possession of the land in dispute on the day of occurrence and had every right to prevent the trespassers from entering into the land of the Gram Panchayat.

I have heard Mr. Mani Ram, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate, the learned counsel for the State and Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

A case under Sections 148/149/307/302/323, Indian Penal Code and 25/27/54/59, Arms Act, was registered against 17 persons on the basis of statement of petitioner Paramjit Singh vide Annexure P1. During the investigation of the said case, on the basis of the statement of Zora Singh (respondent No. 2) another cross case vide FIR No. 368 dated 25.8.1995 under Section 148/149/447, Indian Penal Code, Police Station Tohana (Annexure P2) was registered against the petitioners and challan was put in the court after due investigation and collecting evidence by the investigating agency. The learned Sessions Judge vide Annexure P3 ordered the framing of charge and the charge was accordingly framed vide Annexure P4.

During the course of arguments, much reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the order of status quo passed in a civil suit between the parties. In my opinion, in these proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of criminal proceedings, it would not be desirable to comment upon the evidentiary value of such evidence which is yet to be produced by the parties and the Civil Court is yet to give its decision. No doubt, this Court has the extraordinary or inherent power to quash the First Information Report and criminal proceedings, but this power has to be exercised very sparingly keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in its various judgments particularly in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 383 : JT 1990(4) 650 : 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335. This power has to be used in such cases where a bare reading of the First Information Report does not prima facie make out any case or where the case has been got registered with mala fide intentions to seek revenge or to humiliate innocent persons. Where a bare reading of the First Information Report makes out commission of a cognizable offence, the Court will restrain its hand from using this inherent power to quash the proceedings in a criminal case. The normal process of criminal trial cannot be allowed to be cut short in a casual manner. This Court is not required to embark upon an enquiry as the credence given to the order of status quo passed by the civil court or to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the First Information Report on the basis of evidence collected during investigation. Moreover, the learned Sessions Judge has, after perusing the report and documents under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hearing the Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, found grounds to believe that the accused have prima facie committed the offences with which they have been ordered to be charged; thereby going to show that a prima facie case was made out by the prosecution on the basis of which the order framing of charge was passed. In such a case, it will not be desirable on the part of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings. Moreover, no material has been brought on the record to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. Therefore, there is no justification for interference by this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

For the aforementioned reasons, this petition fails and is, accordingly, hereby dismissed.