SUMEET SOFAT Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the doctor. In a complaint made by one Ranjit Singh (respondent No.3), FIR has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 3/4 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act') and under Sections 323/506 IPC. The petitioner, accordingly, has approached this Court for quashing of FIR on the ground that this FIR is actuated with malice and is lodged due to property dispute that he is having with one Ramesh Pashan and his wife Simmi Pashan.

(2.) The petitioner would aver that he is involved in a serious property dispute with Ramesh Pashan and his wife for the last five years. The petitioner has made reference to the civil litigation initiated against him regarding this dispute. This dispute has even reached upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As per the petitioner, all the Courts have granted injunction in his favour and against 'Pashan'. As stated in the petition, respondent No.3 is working as a driver with Ramesh Pashan and his wife. He had criminally trespassed the property of the petitioner along with masters i.e. Ramesh Pashan and his wife. The petitioner has even made allegation of dacoity against said respondent No.3 (complainant) for which the complaint was made against the said respondent and others. The petitioner states that the police did not take any action on his complaint. This has forced the petitioner to move an application before the Illaqa Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Illaqa Magistrate, thereafter, took cognizance of the complaint against respondent No.3 and others. It is stated that respondent No.3 is also accused along with Ramesh Pashan for committing offences under various Sections at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. on the basis of complaint lodged by one Dinesh Kumar Mittal on 8.7.2009. This all is highlighted to show that respondent No.3 is working as a driver with Ramesh Pashan and is accused of committing an unnatural offence against Dinesh Kumar Mittal after intoxicating him with some drugs. Reference is also made to another incident dated 19.7.2009, as per which the petitioner was proceeding along with this colleague from Nelson to Morni Hills from Chandigarh, when respondent No.3 and Ramesh Pashan and others had intercepted his car with the Scorpio vehicle. Ramesh Pashan had allegedly snatched the bag containing Rs. 33 lacs from the petitioner at gun point. Ramesh Pashan is alleged to have even told his son to shoot the petitioner. The petitioner along his companions ran away towards the hill side to save their lives. Allegation of use of fire arm with intention to kill the petitioner is also made in this case. The petitioner had escaped unhurt. On this basis, FIR was registered against accused persons therein under Sections 395/397 IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act.

(3.) Having narrated all these incidents, it is averred that the present FIR is a counter blast to the complaints filed by the petitioner. Respondent No.3 has moved this complaint against the petitioner on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. Counsel for the petitioner would contend that prima facie, even bare reading of the FIR would clearly show that no offence is made out. In this regard, it is averred that the necessary ingredients of Section 3 of the Act are neither alleged nor averred. As per the counsel, reading of the FIR, thus, would show that this is only an abuse of process of the Court. In support, the counsel has placed reliance on the case reported as State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR(SC) 604.