HARKANWAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Cr.P.C.') has been filed seeking quashing of complaint No. 230/1/11 dated 04.02.2010 titled "Surjit Singh Vs. Harkanwal Singh and another" for offence punishable under Sections 302, 506, 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') (Annexure P6), summoning order dated 07.07.2012 (Annexure P7) and proceedings emanating therefrom.

(2.) THE brief backdrop of this case is that Surjit Singh (respondent No. 2) lodged FIR No. 66 dated 05.07.2009 for offence punishable under Sections 304/34 IPC in regard to murder of his father on the allegations that on 05.07.2009 at about 8 AM, he started operating tubewell to water his field. In the meanwhile, Harkanwal Singh armed with Kirpan, Balbir Singh armed with Kahi (spade) came there and asked him not to operate the tubewell. He told them to talk to his father namely Jaswant Singh. The aforesaid persons along with the complainant came to their house and asked his father that they have share in the motor and his father replied that they have nothing to do with the motor and if they have share, they should initiate court proceedings. Harkanwal Singh and Balbir Singh caught his father from his neck, thrashed him and thereafter ran away along with their weapons. Jaswant Singh was brought to Dashmesh Hospital, Bhogpur for treatment where the doctor declared him dead. His father was a patient of heart problem for the last five years.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners contends that after thorough investigation in the matter, the investigating agency submitted a cancellation report on 05.09.2012 in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar. Surjit singh complainant did not agree with the cancellation report and the case was returned to the investigating agency for further investigation. It is argued with vehemence that the respondent during investigation in the FIR lodged at his behest filed the instant criminal complaint, when otherwise his protest against the cancellation report was accepted by the court and the matter was referred for further investigation. It is further argued that the Judicial Magistrate despite being apprised that FIR No. 66 dated 05.07.2009 stood registered in Police Station Bhogpur with regard to the same occurrence in which the police has prepared a cancellation report as stated before the High Court, did not bother to seek any report regarding cancellation and its status. It is further argued that during preliminary inquiry, respondent No. 2 examined Dr. Onkar Singh CW4, who declared Jaswant singh as dead. Dr. Namita CW5 was examined to prove postmortem report in view of examination of dead body of Jaswant Singh and the witness has categorically stated that there was no external injury on the body, no poison was detected in the Exhibits No. 1 to 5 sent for chemical analysis and as per pathological report, both the coronary arteries show atherosclerotic changes and the Medical Board opined that cause of death in the case was coronary insufficiency leading to cardiogenic shock, sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The Judicial Magistrate, in the face of aforesaid medical evidence, still proceeded to summon the petitioners for committing the offence of murder. It is argued with vehemence that criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2 are nothing but an abuse and misuse of process of court and liable to be quashed.