PARDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) has been filed for quashing the report dated 1.4.2001, Annexure P-5 registered under Sections 107, 151 Cr.P.C. and subsequent proceedings in pursuance thereto pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate (East) Ludhiana.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the present petition as stated by the petitioners are that on 5.2.2001, the petitioners and uncle of petitioner No. 1-namely, Darshan Singh were attacked by Baldev Singh-respondent No. 5 and his associates. The petitioners and their relatives suffered numerous injuries and Darshan Singh was admitted to Civil Hospital, Sahnewal. He remained admitted for 6 days from 5.2.2001 to 11.2.2001. Pardeep Singh-petitioner No. 1 made a report of this occurrence to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sahnewal on the same day which was recorded as DDR No. 33 dated 5.2.2001, Annexure P-2. It is the case of the petitioners that instead of taking action against the persons who had attacked them and their relatives, the Station House Officer registered FIR No. 10 dated 5.2.2001 against the petitioners and their relatives for the offences under Sections 323/324/325/452/506/148/149 IPC at Police Station Sahnewal. The petitioners were arrested and then were released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 14.2.2001. Darshan Singh, the uncle of petitioner No. 1 in the meanwhile filed a petition i.e. Crl.Misc. 6403-M of 2001 for the grant of anticipatory bail in the said criminal case, which was allowed by this Court on 28.3.2001 (Annexure P-4). The petitioners also filed Crl. Misc. 10106-M of 2001 for directing the Station House Officer, Sahnewal, not to ask the petitioners to present themselves before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana as the challan/final report had not been presented and also for directing him to arrest respondents 4 to 9 in the said petition. This Court on 16.3.2001 on the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners recorded that the said petition be restricted only for the relief regarding arrest of the accused-respondents in the cross case and regarding transfer of the investigation to some other police officer in respect of cross case at the instance of the petitioners because no action had been taken by the police in the cross case. The counsel further stated that the first prayer regarding not to present themselves in Court till challan/final report is filed may be treated as not pressed at that stage. After obtaining the order of anticipatory bail passed on 28.3.2001, Darshan Singh, went to respondent No. 3 i.e. Station House Officer, Police Station, Sahnewal for furnishing his bail bonds. However, he was detained and was sent to the lock up. At that time, Darshan Singh was accompanied by his surety Sadhu Singh son of Babu Singh. It is alleged that the Station House Officer, Police Station was doing all this at the behest of respondent No. 5-Baldev Singh son of Gurdial Singh resident of village Katani Kalan as also his father Gurdial Singh. Despite the pendency of Crl.Misc. 10106-M of 2001 in this Court for withdrawing case from respondent No. 3-Station House Officer Police Station Sahnewal in which notice had also been issued, the Station House Officer paid little heed to the said proceedings. Besides he did not honour the order granting anticipatory bail by this Court on 28.3.2001 (Annexure P-4) in Crl.Misc. 6403-M of 2001. Said Darshan Singh was illegally arrested and his surety who was accompanying him to the police station rushed to bring some respectable persons who apprised the Station House officer not to detain him. Station House Officer having realised his mistake called respondent No. 5-Baldev Singh to the police station and got registered report under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. just to legalise the illegal arrest of arrest of Darshan Singh.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 1.4.2001 and on 5.4.2001 has passed cryptic orders and has passed the same in gross violation of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M., Monghyr, AIR 1971 SC 2486. He has further contended that mandatory provisions of Section 111 Cr.P.C. has not been complied with and, therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. In support of this contention, he has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Jagdip and another v. State, 1987(2) RCR 480.