The court emphasized that a complaint filed after significant delay, introducing new allegations, can constitute an abuse of process, especially when prior investigations contradict the claims.

JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)

By way of this common order, I dispose off the aforementioned two petitions. Both petitions relate to proceedings emanating from same occurrence. Thus, the same are being taken up together for adjudication.

2. The narration of the facts is a tale of an ordinary municipal election turning into horrific and gory incident. FIR No.17 dated 10.02.2021 registered under Sections 302, 307, 323, 188, 148, 149 & 120B IPC at Police Station City Moga, District Moga, Punjab came into being on the statement made by one Gurtej Singh @ Raju Kular whose wife was contesting for the office of Municipal Council on the ticket of Shiromani Akali Dal with respect to murder of Harminder Singh @ Pappu and Jasdeep Singh @ Bhola who were allegedly trampled by Pajero vehicle driven by Narinderpal Singh Sidhu, whose wife Paramjit Kaur Sidhu was the contestant from the same Ward as the Congress candidate.

2.1. On the representation made by the accused-party for re-investigation, SIT was constituted by S.S.P, Moga. SIT concluded that the accused sped away from vehicle in order to save themselves from the crowd of the opposite party and thus, offence under Section 304 IPC was made out and not that punishable under Section 302 IPC. On 02.08.2021 i.e. almost after six months of the occurrence, a criminal complaint was filed by Paramjit Kaur Sidhu (respondent No.1 in CRM-M-20406-2022), wife of the main accused Narinderpal Singh Sidhu (petitioner in CRM-M-22131-2023), seeking summoning of 18 persons including the complainant/respondent No.2-Gurtej Singh qua the same occurrence claiming that Gurtej Singh, with an intent to kill Jaslovepreet Singh, tried to hit dang blow which landed on the head of Harminder Singh @ Babbu, who fell on the ground. Thus Gurtej Singh being guilty of murder of Harminder Singh be punished for offence under Section 302 IPC. After the vehicle belonging to Narinderpal Singh Sidhu was vandalized, he tried to flee away from the spot in his car which led to stampede resulting in the death of Jasdeep Singh @ Bhola.

3. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Moga vide order dated 30.04.2022 summoned 15 accused out of 18. The accused in the FIR case is the complainant party in the complaint case. The accused in the FIR case i.e. petitioner- Narinderpal Singh Sidhu seeks quashing of the same in CRM-M No.22131 of 2023.

4. The petitioners in CRM-M No.20406 of 2022 have been summoned in the complaint case and they seek quashing of the complaint. Petitioner No.1 has been summoned for offence under Sections 302, 307 & 323 IPC and Petitioners No.2 to 6 have been summoned for offence under Sections 427, 148, 149 and 188 IPC.

5. Dr. Sidhu, learned Senior counsel for the accused in FIR case submits that it is a case of false implication on account of political rivalry. SIT was constituted under the orders passed by S.S.P, Moga which came to the conclusion that it is not a case of murder as there was no intent on part of the accused party to kill the deceased. After the vehicle of petitioner was vandalized by unruly mob, the petitioner in order to save himself, sped away from the scene leading to stampede causing injuries/deaths on the spot. Thus, it's at the most case of Section 304 IPC and not Section 302 IPC.

5.1. He further submits that in the complaint preferred by the accused party, the petitioners in CRM-M No.20406 of 2022 have been summoned after Magistrate found prima facie case against them, thus the FIR deserves to be dismissed as malicious.

6. Per contra, Mr. Deol, learned Senior counsel for petitioners (summoned in a complaint case) submits that it's a case where the accused party has patently abused the process of law.

6.1. He contends that owing to political rivalry the accused party tried to mow down the supporters of the petitioners and as a result 2 men lost their lives in a gruesome act.

6.2. He further submits that petitioner being member of ruling party at the time of occurrence tried to influence the investigat