GULKARAN SINGH SANDHU Vs. RACHHPAL SINGH KANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr.P.C') has been preferred seeking quashing of criminal complaint No. 28 of 29.07.2010 (Annexure P7) for offence punishable under Sections 323, 326, 307, 498-A, 496, 120-B, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC), summoning order dated 07.01.2012 (Annexure P8) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib and proceedings emanating therefrom.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the criminal proceedings initiated by Rachhpal Singh Kang, father of Navdeep Kaur Kang, married to Ravisher Singh (non-applicant) are the result of marital discord between Navdeep Kaur Kang and Ravisher Singh. The petitioner was enrolled with the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council in the year 2007 and is practicing at District Court at Fatehgarh Sahib. The petitioner has no relation with Ravisher Singh, son-in-law of the complainant with whom the complainant has a long drawn litigation for the last few years. On 11.07.2008, Rachhpal Singh Kang and Manraj Singh Kang, his son, gave beatings to Iqbal Singh (brother of Ravisher Singh) leading to registration of FIR No. 121 dated 11.07.2008 under Sections 323, 506, 452 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Bassi Pathana on the statement of Iqbal Singh. As a counter-blast to this FIR, Manraj Singh Kang filed a criminal complaint No. 65 dated 07.08.2008 under Sections 418, 420, 467, 468, 120- B IPC against Jaspal Kaur (mother-in-law of Navdeep Kaur Kang and mother of Ravisher Singh), Gulkaran Singh, petitioner and others and said complaint was dismissed by Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib vide order dated 04.12.2008 (Annexure P2), whereafter the complainant got instituted another complaint through his son Manraj Singh Kang, complaint No. 85 dated 03.10.2008 under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 477-A, 167 and 120-B IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib against Jaspal Kaur and Jagmohan Lal in which the accused were ordered to be summoned vide order dated 25.02.2009. It is argued that Jaspal Kaur filed an application for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib in which Gulkaran Singh, petitioner appeared as proxy counsel for Jaspal Kaur and Jagmohan Lal and for that reason, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime converting the case of road accident into that of attempt to murder of Navdeep Kaur, using fertile brain of complainant Rachhpal Singh Kang who is in legal profession for the past over 30 years. Another submission made by counsel is that with regard to the occurrence in question, FIR No. 49 dated 15.04.2010 under Sections 307, 323, 120-B IPC was registered in Police Station Bassi Pathana. During investigation by ASI Rajwant Singh, Police Station Bassi Pathana, it was revealed that the case was wrongly registered by the complainant against five persons. An inquiry was marked to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bassi Pathana and after thorough inquiry, the said Officer concluded vide his report dated 19.04.2010 (Annexure P4), that it was a case of road accident attracting offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC only. The complainant filed another representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib on 21.04.2010 which was marked to the Superintendent of Police (Detective), Fatehgarh Sahib, who joined all the concerned persons, inspected the spot, examined the call details of the accused and came to hold in inquiry report dated 11.05.2010 that accused named in the FIR, namely Ravisher Singh, Iqbal Singh, Jaspal Kaur and Gulkaran Singh are innocent and further recommended to S.H.O., Police Station Bassi Pathana to present challan against Jaswinder Singh, driver of the truck trolla bearing registration No. PB 23-F 1261 for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC and subsequent thereto, challan was presented against said Jaswinder Singh for the aforesaid offences and the petitioner along with his co-accused were found innocent and kept in column No. 2. According to learned counsel, keeping in view the background of this case and protracted litigation pending between the complainant and his family on one side and Ravisher Singh and his family members on the other side coupled with two reports submitted by the senior functionaries of the police, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are nothing but an abuse and misuse of process of law and liable to be quashed.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, argued that disputed questions of fact are not open for adjudication in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C and the Court cannot go into truth or falsity of the allegations put forth by the complainant which are subject matter of the trial to be conducted by the Court below. It is further argued that the present petitioner is a close acquaintance of Ravisher Singh, husband of Navdeep Kaur Kang for that reason, the petitioner joined hands and entered into a criminal conspiracy with his co-accused to commit murder of Navdeep Kaur with whom Ravisher Singh is interested in snapping marital ties. It is further submitted that as the trial Court found a prima facie case based upon testimony of the complainant and other three eye witnesses to the occurrence, the inquiry report submitted by the concerned police officers cannot be looked into at this stage to doubt correctness of the summoning order. Counsel would further argue that the petitioner is not entitled to seek indulgence of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the face of specific statutory remedy of revision, available to him to challenge the summoning order.