Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Parminder Singh - Appellant
Versus
Ravinder Singh And Another - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 9096 of 2012, 24906 of 2012
Decided On : 06-12-2019
Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate, Sartaj Singh Gill, Advocate, Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Advocate, R.S. Bains, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the existence of a counter-FIR is not necessarily grounds to quash a complaint, and that summoning orders should be based on sufficient evidence.
Headnote:
IPC - Criminal Complaint - Sections 452, 382, 427, 341, 342, 506, 148, 149 - The court discussed the impugned criminal complaint filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including the summoning order and the evidence presented. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to summon the accused persons based on the statement of the complainant and other witnesses, as well as supporting evidence such as CCTV footage and photographs. The court dismissed the petitions challenging the complaint and summoning order, emphasizing that the mere existence of a counter-FIR was not sufficient grounds to quash the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners and other accused persons, alleging that they forcibly entered a premises, wrongfully confined individuals, destroyed property, and stole electronic equipment and cash.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient evidence to summon the accused persons based on the statement of the complainant and other witnesses, as well as supporting evidence such as CCTV footage and photographs.
Issues: The issues involved the quashing of the criminal complaint and the summoning order, as well as the consideration of evidence and the existence of a counter-FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the mere existence of a counter-FIR was not sufficient grounds to quash the complaint, and that the summoning order was based on sufficient evidence presented during the preliminary evidence stage.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions challenging the complaint and summoning order, directing the trial court to expedite the trial.
JUDGMENT
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - This order shall dispose of aforementioned two petitions praying for quashing of criminal complaint No.110/2011 dated 20.01.2011 (Annexure P-1) filed under Sections 452, 382, 427, 341, 342, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') titled as Ravinder Singh Vs. Sandeep Kumar and others and the summoning order dated 08.07.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, vide which the petitioners had been summoned to face the trial under Sections 452, 380 read with Section 149 IPC as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-complainant Ravinder Singh filed the aforesaid complaint against the petitioners and others accused persons, with the allegations that one Gurdev Singh is running cable operator business in the name of M/s God Father Communication at Amritsar. On 27.12.2010, the complainant went to meet Gurdev Singh, but he was not there and the petitioners and other accused persons came at the shop of Gurdev Singh and forcibly and illegally entered the premises, with the help of police and wrongfully confined Raju Sahidev and Naveen Singh in a room by breaking the cabins of M/s God Father Communication and destroyed all the network instruments and while leaving, took away many electronic equipments, as detailed in the complaint, along with cash of Rs.23,455/-.
3. The trial Court, thereafter, vide impugned order dated 08.07.2011, summoned the petitioners and other accused persons, after recording the statement of CW1-complainant and five other witnesses i.e. CW2 Gurdev Singh, CW3 Naveen Singh, CW4 Shaminder Singh, CW5 Raju Sahidev and CW6 B.S. Chohan, photographer, who had deposed on the lines of version given in the complaint. The impugned summoning order reads as under: -
"The present complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging that Gurdev Singh son of Teja Singh was running a Cable operator business in the name of M/s God Father Communication at Shop No.331-332, Majitha Road, Opposite Tung Bala Gate, Amritsar vide licence issued by the Government of India bearing No.337 (Head Post Office), and Gurdev Singh also hired other channels through agreement dated 1.11.2010. It has been further alleged that Raju Sahidev, Naveen Singh, Sahil and Sunil Kumar were employees of Gurdev Singh working with him at his above said premises. On 27.12.2010 at about 2.30 p.m., the complainant went to meet Gurdev Singh at his premises and Gurdev Singh was not there as he had gone to Delhi for business purpose. At about 3.00 pm accused Sandeep Kumar, Kuldeep Singh, Parminder Singh, Sarabjit Singh alias Raju and his driver Gulzar Singh, Arjan Singh, ASI Manjit Singh, HC Baljinder Singh and Constable Raghbir Singh came to the shop of Gurdev Singh and forcibly and illegally entered in the said premises and with the help of police wrongfully confined Raju Sahidev and Naveen Singh in a room and broken the cabins of God Father Communication and destroyed all the cable network instruments and took away some articles as fully mentioned in the complaint and they also threatened the workers and the complainant if they would dare to report or restrain them from doing so, they would be killed. It has been further alleged that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention with accused Sarabjit Singh Raju who had also two Gunmen who were standing on the main gate of the shop and out of stolen articles, some articles were put in car bearing No.PB-02-BG0010 and some articles in Car bearing No.PIP 9 by accused Sandeep Kumar and Arjan Singh. It has been further alleged that in the said premises, Gurdev Singh installed CCTV Camera and the said high handedness of the accused was recorded in the above said camera and photographs of said CCTV camera were attached. It has been further alleged that this incident was witnessed by Shaminder Singh, who stopped at the place of incident while he was passing
