HARBANS SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. VIDYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint 'Vidya Devi v. Harbans Singh and another' (Annexure P9) for offence under sections 323, 324, 452, 34 IPC and summoning order dated 08.01.2012 (Annexure P12), passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Phillaur, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners contends that FIR No. 40 dated 29.04.2005 for offence under sections 452, 427, 380, 506 IPC, P S Goraya, Jalandhar was registered against Bakkan Ram and others, including Vidya Devi, which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the accused. The respondent as a counter-blast to said FIR, lodged a false FIR No. 5 dated 21.01.2007 for offence under sections 323, 452, 324, 34 IPC, P S Goraya, District Jalandhar. Vidya Devi, respondent filed a petition before this Court, i.e., CRM M 7712 of 2007 (Annexure P-5) which was disposed of with a direction to Sr. Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, to get the matter verified from a senior police official not below the rank of DSP. After the matter was thoroughly investigated by the concerned DSP, a report was submitted that no such occurrence had actually taken place. Vidya filed a complaint on 29.08.2007 on the same set of allegations. However, during pendency of said complaint, a report was called from Police Station Goraya and a report was submitted in the court that FIR No. 5 dated 21.01.2007 has been cancelled. It is further submitted that reinvestigation in the case was conducted and even during reinvestigation, allegations of the respondent were found to be false. Another report dated 01.05.2008 (Annexure P10) was prepared with the observation that the incident mentioned in the complaint is not proved to have happened. A report dated 27.09.2011 (Annexure P11) was submitted for cancellation of FIR. As during investigation, it was found that no such occurrence as narrated by the respondent had actually happened, it is argued that the Court of Judicial Magistrate despite gaining knowledge that the police has prepared a cancellation report, finding no truth in the allegations of the respondent, passed the impugned order of summoning the petitioners to face trial without recording any reasons to differ with the findings of the investigating agency. It is further submitted that the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur passed a cryptic and non-speaking order without examining the previous reports, particularly in the circumstances that one of the reports was prepared after verification of the matter by DSP in compliance with directions given by this Court while disposing of CRM M 7712 of 2007 (Annexure P-5).

(3.) Counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, argues that as petitioner No. 1 retired as Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Punjab from Chandigarh, he was able to wield his influence on the police and for that reason, the investigating officer prepared a false report giving a clean chit to the petitioners. It is further submitted that Harbans Singh lodged a false FIR against the respondent and her family members, which eventually resulted in acquittal of the respondents and her co-accused. The last submission made by counsel is that there is no legal impediment for the Court to take cognizance of an offence on a private complaint even if after investigation, the investigating agency did not present a challan before the Court.