SURJAN SINGH Vs. DARSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of complaint Annexure P1 and summoning order Annexure P2 dated 31.1.1989. Respondent Darshan Lal filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, alleging that on 19.4.1983 he along with his wife Surider Kaur and daughter Sarabjit Kuar went to the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate in connection with a case titled Surinder Kaur v. Amrit Kaur etc. His wife has to receive some amount of compensation from the Court that day. She received the amount of Rs. 473/- and after doing so all three were coming out of the court room when the aforesaid accused persons, who were standing outside, pounced upon them and tried to snatch the said amount. In the process Surinder Kaur was assaulted. Surinder Kaur handed over the amount to her husband, the complainant, and he put the same in his pocket. That amount together with Rs. 150/- which he was already carrying were snatched from him by the accused after giving him blows and uttering dirty abuses. They also threatened to kill him. Jagjit Singh accused took away Rs. 623/-. Surinder Singh accused robbed the complainant of his gold ring and Harnam Singh accused gave him fist blows and slaps. Besides Surinder Kaur, Sarabjit Kaur and Dr. Sadhu Ram Ex-M.L.A. ' Nirmal, a class IV employee, and Naib Court attached to the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate saw the occurrence and rescued the complainant from the accused persons. On the basis of preliminary evidence, the accused were summoned under section 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid complaint is a series of totally false and frivolous complaints filed against one or more of the petitioners by the complainant or his wife or his daughter. The object of the complaint is to bring pressure to bear on the petitioner Jagjit Lal, who is otherwise his real brother, as there is dispute and civil litigation is going on with regard to property left by their father Chuni Lal. In other words according to the petitioners the allegations made in the complaint are totally false and frivolous. In this connection, reference was made to a report, Annexure P3, made by the Sub-Inspector of Police in which the complainant has been described in a very poor light as a habitual complainant against various persons. The summoning order has been assailed on the ground that the same was passed without any application of mind. Lastly, it was submitted that there was long delay in filing the complaint.

(3.) IT is obviously not possible to go into the questions whether and to what extent the allegations made in the complaint are true. For the present purposes, unless the allegation add upto a totally absurd statement or inherently improbable to such an extent that no reasonable person can ever possibly accept the same to have happened, it must be accused that the allegations made are prima facie true. All that is required to be seen in such a situation is whether the allegations constitution offence. Applying the aforesaid test, I have no doubt that the allegations do constitute various offences. Simply because several other complaints have been filed does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the present complaint should be dismissed at the threshold. Each case has to be decided on its on merits according to law. No doubt, the report of the police Annexure P3, is damaging for the complainant, but this is by itself no reason to throw out the complaint. It is settled law that a summoning order need not be very elaborate. In fact, the Code requires reasons to be given only where the Managing Director decides to dismiss the complaint which would by implication mean that where the Magistrate finds a prima facie case and decides to proceed further in the matter detailed reasons are not required. For the above reasons, I find no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Parties though their counsel are directed to appear in the trial Court on 20.3.1991 for further proceedings according to law.