JAGJIT LAL Vs. SURINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint, Annexure P1, and summoning order, Annexure P2, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Surinder Kaur filed a complaint against 16 persons including the two petitioners alleging that her father-in-law Chuni Lal had left a will in respect of 94 Kanals 13 Marlas of land situated at Kapurthala in favour of his grandsons, being the sons of the complainant. The said sons were minors and the land was, therefore, being managed and looked after by their mother, the complainant Litigation had been going on between the parties with regard to the said land and, according to the complainant, on her application an order for correction of entries in the Khasra girdawari in respect of the said land had been passed in her favour w.e.f. 1984. In 1984, she had sown paddy. When the crop was ready for harvesting, 16 accused who included two sons of Bhagat Ram, namely, Amar Nath and Om Parkash, three sons of Amar Nath, namely, Vijay Kumar, Ram Lubhaya and Ashok Kumar, three sons of one Madan Lal, Jagjit, real brother of the husband of the complaint, Surjan Singh and his two sons, besides others came and forcibly harvested the crop regarding which a report was lodged with the police. The police, however, took no action against the accused. Again in May, 1985, the same very 16 accused came and forcibly harvested the paddy crop of the complainant. When some resistance was offered by the complainant, accused No. 14 who was armed with a double barrel gun and accused Nos. 15 and 16 who were carrying pistols and the remaining accused who were armed with dangs and kirpans threatened the complainant with dire consequences if she resisted and that her family will be exterminated. The accused had the crop harvested and took away the same. The matter was again reported to the police but it failed to take any action. Again in the year 1986, complainant's paddy crop was forcibly harvested and taken away by the same very 16 accused. When the complainant raised alarm, her husband Darshan Lal, her daughters Manjit Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur came to her rescue. The complainant sent many complaints to different officers and ultimately she made an application to the Governor on 29.2.1988, but no action was taken on any of those complaints.

(2.) IN the preliminary evidence, the complainant appeared herself and examined her husband Darshan Lal (PW2). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned the accused persons under sections 452/379/447/392/148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel. The implication of all male members of various branches of the family speaks for itself. A perusal of the complaint, Annexure P1, shows that no date except the date with regard to the last mentioned occurrence his been mentioned, no time has been given, the various acts committed by different accused have not been specified, and in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that it will be abuse of the process of Court to permit the continuance of these proceedings. There is no law that ipse dixit of the complainant must be accepted and that the Magistrate is bound to proceed further in the matter howsoever frivolous the complaint may be. For these reasons, the complaint, Annexure P-1, and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Order accordingly.