Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1621
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Sanjay Kumar, J.
Parmeshwari Devi And Another - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab And Another - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 21158 of 2013
Decided On : 08-12-2020
Vikas Bahl, Advocate, Drishtana Singh, Advocate, Palak Jain, Advocate, Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Advocate, Puneet Sharma, Advocate
The court emphasized the importance of evidence and lack of bonafides in pursuing a complaint, and upheld the validity of the summoning order.
Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Complaint - Sections 307, 452, 323, 148 and 149 IPC - Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. and others V/s. State of Maharashtra and another, (2009) 2 SCC 370, Prabhu Chawla V/s. State of Rajasthan and another, (2016) 16 SCC 30 and Vijay and another V/s. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 13 SCC 317
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of a complaint and summoning order under Sections 307, 452, 323, 148 and 149 IPC, citing a compromise and lack of bonafides in the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no evidence of a compromise and dismissed the petitioners' claims of lack of bonafides. The court also held that the summoning order was valid and dismissed the petition.
Issues: Validity of the complaint and summoning order, existence of a compromise, lack of bonafides in the complaint, and jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no evidence of a compromise and upheld the summoning order, citing lack of bonafides in the complaint and the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications were also dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kumar, J. - The first petitioner herein is the mother of the second petitioner and the mother-in-law of the second respondent. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the mother and son seek quashing of the second respondent's Complaint No.2 of 08.01.2009 filed against them and some others under Sections 307, 452, 323, 148 and 149 IPC. They also challenge the order dated 19.03.2012 passed thereon by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sunam, summoning all the accused to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 148 and 149 IPC.
2. By order dated 05.07.2013, this Court noted the contention of the petitioners that a compromise had been effected between the parties but despite the same, the second respondent had pursued the subject complaint and got the summoning order issued to the petitioners, thereby misusing the process of law. This Court also took note of their contention that an earlier FIR relating to the same events had been mentioned in the complaint but the same was not taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate, while passing the summoning order. This Court accordingly directed the trial Court to adjourn the case. This interim order is operative as on date. The second respondent filed an application to vacate the said order.
3. However, as comprehensive arguments were advanced by Mr. Vikas Bahl, learned senior counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the first respondent-State; and Mr. Puneet Sharma, learned counsel for the second respondent, the main case itself is amenable to final disposal at this stage. At the outset, it may be noted that the issue of maintainability of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C stands settled in favour of the petitioners as the inherent powers of this Court cannot be curtailed by the availability of an alternative remedy in the form of a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C, in so far as the challenge to the summoning order is concerned [See Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. and others V/s. State of Maharashtra and another, (2009) 2 SCC 370 , Prabhu Chawla V/s. State of Rajasthan and another, (2016) 16 SCC 30 and Vijay and another V/s. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 13 SCC 317 ].
4. The grounds on which the petitioners seek quashing of the subject complaint and the summoning order passed thereon are as follows :
(i) no offence is made out against the petitioners inasmuch as FIR No.40 dated 03.03.2008 was registered upon the complaint of the first petitioner against the second respondent and others in relation to the very same incident which is the subject matter of the complaint; a challan was presented in relation to FIR No.40 dated 03.03.2008 against the second respondent and others in Criminal Case No.493 of 20.10.2008, culminating in the final acquittal judgment dated 10.01.2012 and therefore, there could not be two trials in respect of the same incident; (ii) the second respondent's complaint lacked bonafides as he had backtracked after compromising the matter and after taking the benefit thereof, by securing the acquittal judgment dated 10.01.2012 in relation FIR No.40 dated 03.03.2008; and
(iii) the second petitioner is a resident of Chandigarh, as is borne out by his passport, and the learned Magistrate ought to have inquired into the matter or caused an investigation in keeping with the mandate of Section 202 Cr.P.C. before issuing process, but the summoning order dated 19.03.2012 reflects that no such inquiry/investigation was undertaken.
5. During the course of arguments, an additional ground was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the second respondent-complainant lacked bonafides as he had not disclosed the fact that the Superintendent of Police, Patiala, had undertaken an investigation into the events which formed the basis of FIR No.40 dated 03.03.2008 and submitted Report dated 22.08.2008 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range
