SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1277

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
N.S. Shekhawat, J.
Gurcharan Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M No. 18550 of 2014
Decided On : 25-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Tarunveer Vashist Adv. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal DAG, Punjab , Mr. Ritesh Agrawal Adv.

The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, and significant delays in filing complaints can undermine their credibility and warrant quashing of proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 506, and 34 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(x)(ii)(viii) - Petition to quash criminal complaint and summoning order - Delay in filing complaint raises concerns regarding credibility of allegations - No evidence that petitioners were aware of complainant's caste - Proceedings quashed due to lack of merit. (Paras 1, 10, 15)

(B) Right to Speedy Trial - The right to a speedy trial is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution, applicable to all criminal prosecutions, including police investigations. (Paras 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought to quash a complaint alleging assault and caste-based abuses, claiming the complaint was a counterblast to a previous FIR against the complainant. The incident occurred on 17.07.2012, with the complaint filed on 30.03.2013, raising concerns about delay and credibility. (Paras 2, 8)

Findings of Court:
The court found considerable delay in filing the complaint, which was not adequately explained, affecting the credibility of the allegations. The court also noted the absence of evidence that the petitioners were aware of the complainant's caste. (Paras 10, 15)

Issues: The main issues included the delay in filing the complaint and whether the petitioners had knowledge of the complainant's caste during the alleged incident. (Paras 8, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the delay in filing the complaint undermined its credibility and that the allegations did not substantiate an offence under the SC and ST Act, leading to the quashing of the proceedings. (Paras 10, 15)

Result: Petition allowed; complaint and summoning order quashed.

JUDGMENT :

N.S. Shekhawat, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the criminal complaint bearing No. 32 dated 30.03.2013 under Sections 323, 506 and 34 IPC and Section 3(x)(ii)(viii) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the SC and ST Act’) Police Station Patran, District Patiala (Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P-2) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The complaint in the present case was instituted by respondent No. 2/complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samana by alleging that he was a resident of village Khang Tehsil Patran, District Patiala and belonged to Majbhi caste. He was working as a farm labourer with the Balbir Singh. The land of Balbir Singh is adjacent to village Khang of the complainant. In the morning of 17.07.2012, when the respondent No.2/complainant was working in the village of Balbir Singh, Gurcharan Singh, petitioner No. 1, who was the owner of land adjacent to the land of Balbir Singh, came there and threatened the respondent No. 2. The petitioner No. 1 threatened him and asked him not to work there, otherwise, he shall be done to death. On 19.07.2012, when the complainant was working in the fields of Balbir Singh, all the petitioners came there and were carrying sticks in their hands and said to respondent No. 2 “Kutiya-Chuhria, why are you cultivating the land of Balbir Singh, we have enmity with him. Chuhria, we had earlier prohibited you”. Thereafter, all the petitioners had beaten him up and he suffered injuries and was treated at Civil Hospital, Patran. After the said incident, the petitioners/accused colluded with the local police and got one FIR No. 165 dated 20.07.2012 under Sections 324, 326, 341 and 506 of IPC Police Station Patran registered against respondent No. 2 and others. The respondent No. 2 remained in jail from 15.09.2012 to 28.01.2013 in the said case. Even in jail, Sukhwinder Singh, petitioner No. 2 had used caste related abuses against him. The respondent No. 2 was released from jail on 28.01.2013. On 29.01.2013 at about 7/7.30 a.m., when he was going to answer the call of nature, all the accused surrounded him and at that time Ginder Ram and Kala Singh were passing from there and on seeing the respondent No. 2 surrounded by the accused, they stopped there. In their presence, the accused stated that “Salia Chuhria that earlier you might have been saved from our hands, now we will not leave you and after suffering injuries, we will get registered one more case against you and again will sent you to jail”. After saying this, all the accused ran away as many persons had gathered at the spot. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 had submitted an application on 29.01.2013 to Station House Officer, Patran and two other senior police officers but no action was taken. On 04.03.2013, the respondent No. 2 appeared before the SSP Patiala and he was requested to take action. Thereafter, on 17.03.2013, the officials of the Police Station Patran recorded the statement of respondent No. 2 but no action was taken. Ultimately, he filed a complaint under Sections 323, 506 and 34 IPC and Section 3(x)(ii)(viii) of the SC and ST Act.

3. In the preliminary evidence, CW1 Dr. Prasun Kumar Chaudhary who deposed that on 20.07.2012 he medico legally examined the complainant and tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A. He proved on record the MLR Ex. CW1/B, pictorial diagram Ex. CW1/C, police request Ex. CW1/D and bed head ticket of complainant Ex. CW1/E. CW2 HC Bhola Singh, tendered on record copy of FIR registered against the complainant CW2/1. CW3 Satpal Ram, resident village Khang stated that accused persons used abusive language against the complainant, attacked the complainant and caused injuries to him in his presence. CW4 Billu Ram, resident of village Khang, also deposed that occurrence took place in his pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top