Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.K.Srivastava, J.
Sardar Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Misc. No. 20504-M of 1997,
Decided On : JANUARY 23, 1998
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 325 - QUASHING OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT - COURT WILL NOT EMBARK UPON AN ENQUIRY AS TO THE RELIABILITY OR GENUINENESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE FIR OR THE COMPLAINT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought the quashing of a criminal complaint filed against him under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the impugned order of summoning passed by the Judicial Magistrate, IInd Class, Ludhiana. The complaint alleged that the petitioner had assaulted the complainant with a soti, resulting in a fracture of his right forearm.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the preliminary evidence prima facie disclosed the commission of an offence under Section 325 IPC and that the learned Magistrate was justified in ordering the petitioner to be summoned.
Issues: Whether the criminal complaint and the impugned order of summoning should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and other, 1991(1) RCR (Crl.) 383, wherein it was held that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. The court held that it will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
K.K.Srivastava, J.
1. Sardar Singh son of Mehar Singh, resident of House No. B-IV-575, Mohalla Fatehganj, Ludhiana seeks the quashing of criminal complaint dated 10.1.1997 filed under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code, copy annexure P2, and the impugned order of summoning dated 2.8.1997, copy Annexure P1, passed by Judicial Magistrate, IInd Class, Ludhiana. The criminal complaint, Annexure P2, was filed by respondent No. 2, Harnam Singh son of Amit Singh resident of B-V-487, Mohalla Fatehganj, Ludhiana in respect of an occurrence taking place on 6.1.1997 in which the petitioner accused Sardar Singh wielded a soti blow on the head of the complainant-respondent Harnam Singh who raised his right arm to ward off soti blow on his right forearm resulting in the fracture of the bone. Respondent No. 2 complainant approached the police for a registration of the F.I.R., but since no action was taken, this complaint was filed under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code (for short to be referred as IPC) on 10.1.1997. The complainant examined himself, Dr. Kulwant Singh, Medical Offricer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, Parvinderpal Singh and Surinder Kumar in the preliminary evidence and filed photocopy of MLR Exhibit PA and X-ray report sent by Dr. Ashok Rashwat Exhibit P3. The Judicial Magistrate IInd Class, Ludhiana after considering the preliminary evidence and the material placed before him held that there was sufficient evidence on record to proceed against the accused under Section 325 IPC. Accordingly, he ordered the accused Sardar Singh the petitioner to be summoned under Section 325 IPC. Petitioner Sardar Singh seeks the quashing of the impugned complaint and the order of summoning on the ground, inter-alia, that the present complaint has been filed with mala fide intention to take revenge and with a view to spoil the petitioner due to personal grudge; that the real cause of dispute is 200 Sq. Yard plot which respondent No. 2 complainant wanted to grab. The petitioner had foiled all attempt of the complaint respondent No. 2 to grab the plot. It has further been averred that the complainant has not approached the concerned Police Station or D.S.P. or S.P. after the date of the alleged occurrence and has straightway filed a criminal complaint. The complainant respondent did not inform the Doctor at the time of medical examination of his injury. The evidence of Parvinderpal Singh and Surinder Pal son of Radhe Sham was not being worthy of relied upon and their statements were false. Radhe Sham had also given a similar statement against the sons of the petitioner and in favour of the complainant respondent which was not relied upon. The statement of Dr. Kulwant Singh could not be~considered as the Doctor did not explain the reason and mode of the injury in the report. Lastly, it was contended that the statement of Dr. Kulwant Singh is also doubtful as he made the statement of fracture on 31.1.1997, whereas the X-ray report was received on 4.2.1997.
2. Notice of motion was issued to the respondents who put in appearance through counsel. Mr. S.P. Gupta, Advocate put in appearance for respondent No. 2 while respondent No. 1 was represented by Mr. S.S. Randhawa, DAG for State of Punjab.
3. Mr. Behl, appearing for the petitioner contended that the relations between the petitioner and the complainant respondent who are related closely are strained on the land dispute and they are involved in several litigations. The impugned complaint is the result of the inimical relationship between the complainant and the petitioner accused. Learned counsel Mr. S.P. Gupta, appearing for the complainant respondent Harnam Singh, on the other hand, urged that it is settled view of law regarding the quashing of the criminal proceedings that the facts mentioned in the criminal proceedings i.e. FIR or criminal complaint are to be believed as it is and their genuineness, admissibility and reliability cannot be judged at this stage. He has referred to the judgment o
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
