Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L. Singhal, J.
Rameshwar Dayal - Petitioner
Versus
Col. Ram Singh - Respondent
Crl. Rev. No. 100 of 1997.
Decided On : 21 May, 1998
CRIMINAL REVISION - COMPLAINT - COGNIZANCE - SECTION 190 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - POLICE INVESTIGATION - SECTION 210 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - DELAY IN TRIAL - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL - INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant Rameshwar Dayal alleged that accused Col. Ram Singh fired on a gathering of Congress (I) supporters, including the complainant, from the roof of his house during the 1982 Haryana Legislative Assembly election. The police registered an FIR but later submitted a cancellation report, which was accepted by the Magistrate. The complainant then filed a complaint under Section 307/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. The Magistrate summoned the accused, but the Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order, upholding the cancellation report. The complainant challenged this order in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Magistrate had the power to take cognizance of the complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, even though the police had submitted a cancellation report. The court found that the Magistrate had sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also held that the Additional Sessions Judge had erred in considering the investigation of the FIR case, which was not relevant to the complaint case. The court further held that the delay in the trial was not attributable to the complainant and that the interest of justice would not be served by denying him a retrial.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had the power to take cognizance of the complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, even though the police had submitted a cancellation report? 2. Whether the Magistrate had sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code? 3. Whether the Additional Sessions Judge had erred in considering the investigation of the FIR case? 4. Whether the delay in the trial was attributable to the complainant? 5. Whether the interest of justice would be served by denying the complainant a retrial?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 190(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence upon receiving a complaint of facts constituting such offence independently of a police report before him of such facts. 2. The Magistrate is required to examine the allegations in the complaint and the evidence led in support thereof and to determine whether there is a prima facie case against the accused. If there is a prima facie case, the Magistrate is required to summon the accused. 3. The Additional Sessions Judge erred in considering the investigation of the FIR case, which was not relevant to the complaint case. 4. The delay in the trial was not attributable to the complainant. 5. The interest of justice would not be served by denying the complainant a retrial.
Final Decision: The High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, and restored the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused.
JUDGMENT
M.L. Singhal, J. - Rameshwar Dayal was Congress (I) supporter. In October 1983, he instituted complaint under section 307/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 25/27 of the Arms Act against Col. Ram Singh accused on the allegations that he exercised his right of vote in 1982 to the Haryana Legislative Assembly. On 20.5.82 at about 1 PM, he along with others was present in the compound of Ahir College, Rewari which is located in front of the residential house of accused Col. Ram Singh. There was gathering of the people awaiting the declaration of the result of the Jatusana Assembly constituency seat. Most of the people constituting that gathering were Congress (I) supporters. Accused Ram Singh was a candidate sponsored by Congress (J). In the compound of the residence of the accused, there was gathering of thousands of people and some persons were inciting the gathering in the Ahir College compound by using abusive language. They were pelting stones at the gathering gathered in "Ahir College" compound. People were expecting that Congress (I) candidate will come out victorious from the Jatusana Assembly Constituency and the people present in the Ahir College compound were raising slogans "Indira Gandhi Jindabad". Police could not control the aggression. In the meantime, Col. Ram Singh accused appeared on the roof of his residential house with gun along with some other persons who were also having guns in their possession. Police personnel were controlling the gathering but the accused fired on the public gathered in the Ahir College compound. As a result of the firing, the complainant received gun shot injuries. Others also sustained gun shot injuries. Persons who had sustained gun shot injuries were taken to Civil Hospital. Case FIR No. 166 was registered on the same day at PS City Rewari. FIR, however, did not represent the true version made by the first informant. It was alleged by Rameshwar Dayal complainant that as accused was Speaker of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha during those days, he did not allow the investigation to be conducted fairly and squarely by the police. In this situation, complainant was left with no other alternative but to approach the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari through complaint under section 307/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act registered at No. 79-C.
2. In the complaint, the complainant has given the entire background which culminated into this complaint. It is alleged that the accused was having considerable influence/political clout as he was Speaker of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha. Complainant sent many telegrams and applications to the higher echelons of the Police, but no immediate action was taken on FIR No. 166 (ibid) by the police of PS City Rewari. Police investigated the case. Application was moved on 1.6.82 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rewari who issued non-bailable warrants. On 15.6.82, Station House Officer made request for extension of time for the execution of warrants of arrest. Execution of warrants was extended upto 15.7.82. Accused was declared successful to the Haryana Legislative Assembly as Congress (J) sponsored candidate. He joined Congress (I) and was taken as Minister with Transport portfolio. No action was taken on FIR No. 166 (ibid) by the police because of the political clout which the accused was wielding in Haryana. Complainant moved application on 9.8.83 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rewari so that the case was investigated and did not remain in cold storage. Police report was sent for. Report sent by the police was influenced by the accused and the police sent cancellation report. Complainant was not hopeful from the very beginning of justice being meted out to him by the police and, therefore, he instituted complaint (ibid).
3. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari after going through the preliminary evidence led by the complainant with a view to sustaining the complaint found th
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
