SUBEG SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is for quashing of complaint dated 17. 4. 1993 and summoning order dated 11. 2. 1994 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Mansa.

(2.) SMT. Sarabjit Kaur filed a complaint under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 and 506 I. P. C. against petitioners and Jaspal Singh and Gurinder Singh sons of Subeg Singh. The Judicial Magistrate on perusal of the statement of Sarabjit Kaur found prima facie case against Jaspal Singh, Subeg Singh, Surjit Kaur, Rajinder Kaur and Kulvinder Kaur. It was this summoning order which is sought to be quashed on the ground that identical complaint against the present petitioners and other co-accuse was dismissed in default on 6. 3. 1993 and there being no special circumstances for filing a fresh complaint, same is a clear case of abuse of process of the Court. Even otherwise, the complainant had already filed a civil suit against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 as well as against Jaspal Singh and Gurinder Singh. The allegations in the said suit are also similar to the one contained in the criminal complaint except that the names of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Kulvinder Kaur and Rajinder Kaur do not find place in the suit as defendants. On these broad averments, it was prayed that the present complaint deserves to be quashed.

(3.) PURSUANT to the notice issued by the Court, reply has been filed by respondent No. 2. By way of preliminary objection, it has been urged that the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. cannot be exercised in the present case as present petition raises disputed questions of fact. It has further been urged that the Judicial Magistrate having prima facie found a case against the petitioner and Jaspal Singh, the same does not call for any interference under Section 482 Cr. P. C. Other averments made in the petition have been controverted. As regards the filing of the second complaint on the same cause of action, it has been averred that the first complaint was got dismissed in default on the assurance of a compromise given to the answering respondent and other members, of her parental family. It was in fact a clever play of the petitioners to get the complaint dismissed. In fact note at the end of the complaint, Annexure P-1, clearly makes mention as to why the first complaint was got dismissed. The Court also did not apply its judicial mind and so such a dismissal does not debar the complainant to file a fresh complaint. As regards the filing of the civil suit, the same too was defended by asserting that the same pertains to enforcement of civil rights of the answering respondent. It was thus prayed that the petition be dismissed.