PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Prem Singh And Others – Appellant
Versus
Gurpiar Singh – Respondent
CRM-M-11528-2016
Decided on : 05-02-2024
JUDGMENT :
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, petitioners pray for quashing of order dated 11.08.2012 (Annexure P2) passed by the Court of ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala in a Criminal Complaint No.94-T/2010 dated 13.04.2006 titled 'Gurpiar Singh Vs. Prem Singh and others', whereby petitioners have been summoned to face trial for offences punishable under Section 436 read with 511/447/147 read with 149/342/323/120B IPC. Under challenge is also the order dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure P4) passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby revision of the petitioners against the aforesaid order, has been partly allowed, rather than discharging petitioners qua all the offences.2.1 Perusal of the paper-book reveals that complaint (Annexure P1) was filed by Gurpiar Singh (respondent herein) seeking prosecution of as many as 15 accused for committing various offences under Sections 364/366/323/324/325/342/392/395/447/452/506/436/511/425/148/149/34/ 120B IPC. The 15 accused as arrayed in the complaint are in two sets. Ist 6 accused are police officials (not before this court); whereas accused No.7 to 15 are the private individuals, out of whom accused No.7 to 14 (petitioners herein) have approached this Court.
2.2 It was alleged that on 01.03.2006 at about 11 AM, complainant with his cousin Lakhwinder Singh son of Jit Singh, and nephew Lakhwinder Singh son of Mohinder Singh were cutting fodder in their fields, when SHO Harpreet Singh (accused No.1) accompanied by ASI Harpreet Singh (accused No.2), ASI Gurdev Singh (accused No.3), Constable Gurnam Singh (accused No.4), Constable Mastan Singh (accused No.5) and Reader Jaswant Singh (accused No.6) came there in their government vehicle. These police officials were accompanied by accused Sarup Singh, Jagrup Singh, Prem Singh, Jang Singh, Ranjit Singh, Lakhbir Singh @ Laddi, Gurmit Singh, Jasbir Singh and Gursewak Singh (Accused No.7 to 15), who had reached there in two Maruti cars. The complainant, his cousin and nephew were forcibly lifted by the accused in the police van and brought to the Police Station, Julkan. The occurrence was also witnessed by Jagdev Singh son of Kirpal Singh, and Joginder Singh son of Babu Ram.
2.3 It was alleged further that on reaching the Police Station, SHO Harpreet Singh gave stick blows on the foot of nephew of the complainant causing fracture in his foot. ASI Harpreet Singh slapped on the left ear of the nephew of the complainant injuring the ear to the extent that he cannot listen. Constable Mastan Singh gave a stick blow on left foot of Lakhwinder Singh and Constable Gurnam Singh gave fist blow on his nose. Reader Jaswant Singh gave fist blows in his thighs. When complainant requested them not to beat, then accused Laddi son of Sarup Singh (accused No.7/petitioner No.6 herein); and accused No.12-Lakhbir Singh son of Sarup Singh (petitioner No.5 herein), after picking the police sticks gave blows on thighs, knees and feet of the complainant, and SHO slapped on the right ear of the complainant, due to which blood started oozing out of his ear. Then all the accused forcibly put the complainant, his cousin and nephew behind bars without any reason and did not even allow the relatives and respectables of the society to meet them.
2.4 It was alleged further that on the next day (i.e. 02.03.2006), when relatives of the complainant, his cousin and nephew told the accused that they will raise voice against this violence before the higher police officers, the accused-police officials implicated the complainant, his cousin and nephew in a case under Section 107/151 CrPC. All the accused-police officials threatened the complainant, his cousin and nephew that in case any complaint was made against them, they will be killed in a false police encounter. They were released on bail by the Magistrate on 02.03.2006. However, as they came outside the Court and were talking to each other so as to take action against the accuse
Official misconduct during arrest does not fall within the color of duty, allowing defamation claims without prior sanction under the Delhi Police Act.
At the stage of summoning, the Magistrate is not required to consider the defense version or evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence of the complainant.
A Magistrate can summon individuals not charge-sheeted by police if there is prima facie evidence of their involvement in an alleged offence.
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.
Unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is fatal for the prosecution. The prosecution must establish the place of occurrence and the identity of the accused. Contradictions in the evidence should not di....
The court established that the inquiry under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. requires a limited scrutiny for a prima facie case, and misapplication of this standard constitutes legal error.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.