GURINDERJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURINDERJIT Singh and others in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seek quashing of FIR No. 7 dated 4.4.1993 for offence under Sections 336/506 IPC registered at P.S. Hargobindpur alongwith all subsequent proceedings.

(2.) THE impugned FIR was registered on a writing given by Balbir Singh son of Sohan Singh respondent No. 2 to the following effect :-

(3.) THERE is force in the contention of learned counsel that as per the evidence collected by the police it was only Gurcharan Singh who had fired and this firing had been done after all the petitioners had emerged from the house of Balkar Singh. The complainant-Balkbir Singh in place of corroborating what he stated to the police has now put up a version at sufficient variance from the version originally stated. The learned counsel has fairly conceded that if any criminal offence is to be made out on the basis of the FIR, it is only Gurcharan Singh who not only hurled abuses but also fired which will in all probability prima facie make out an offence under Sections 336 and 506 IPC. Qua the others there is no specific part attributed if they were in the company of Gurcharan Singh when they emerged out of the house of Balkar Singh and Gurcharan Singh hurled abuses and fired. They cannot be said to have committed an offence. The evidence collected by the prosecution also does not show any act which may make out a cognizable offence against the petitioners other than Gurcharan Singh. For a somewhat similar offence, which is rather shown to be grevious than the offence charged Balbir Singh had already filed a compliant wherein the Court shall record the necessary findings. I accept the arguments of learned counsel that in this situation as stated above, then contention of the prosecution of the petitioners other than Gurcharan Singh on the basis of the impugned FIR shall be an abuse of the process of Court.