LAWS(P&H)-2002-10-103

TARLOCHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On October 09, 2002
TARLOCHAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") has been filed by the petitioner Tarlochan Singh for quashing of the FIR dated March 10, 1998 which was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by Harbhajan Singh respondent No. 2 and the order dated March 10, 1998 and also the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on October 5, 2000. Certain facts may be noticed :

(2.) A complaint was filed by Harbhajan Singh was September 23, 1996. The aforesaid complaint was under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. A copy of the complaint has been appended as Annexure P-1 with the petition. During the pendency of the aforesaid complaint, complainant Harbhajan Singh filed a civil suit on January 31, 1998 making identical averments which had been alleged in the complaint. The aforesaid civil suit is stated to be still pending. Even during the pendency of the first complaint, complainant Harbhajan Singh filed another complaint on February 4, 1998. A copy of the aforesaid complaint has been appended as Annexure P-3 with the petition. A perusal of the aforesaid complaint shows that it was almost a verbatim copy of the first complaint. Still not satisfied, making a clear misuse of the process of the criminal Court, the complainant filed a third complaint on March 10, 1998. On the aforesaid date, both the complaints i.e. first complaint subsequently filed on September 23, 1996 and second complaint filed on February 4, 1998 were still pending. It is also noticed by me that the first complaint, the second complaint as well as the third complaint were filed by the complainant through the same counsel.

(3.) SINCE the petitioner felt that the entire criminal proceedings taken against him by the complainant were clearly a misuser of the process of the criminal court, therefore, he also filed an application under Section 245 of the Code before the trial Magistrate for his discharge and dropping of the proceedings against him. Vide order dated March 31, 2000, learned Magistrate agreed with the contention of the accused (the present petitioner) and held that in fact the complainant had misued the process of the criminal court. Accordingly, the petitioner was discharged. The complainant chose to approach the learned Sessions Judge by way of revision petition challenging the aforesaid order dated March 31, 2000 passed by the learned trial Magistrate. Vide order dated October 5, 2000 the learned Sessions Judge has set aside the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Magistrate and remanded the case back to the learned trial Magistrate for proceeding with the same in accordance with law.