RAJINDER SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJINDER Singh Petitioner filed a suit against Union of India assailing some punishment awarded to him. In connection with that suit respondents No. 2 and 3 were summoned to appear in the Court of Shri B.C. Gupta, Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh for producing some official record. Respondent No. 2 Jagdev Inder Singh being incharge of legal cell of the office of Accountant General, Punjab, was in custody of the record and Shri B.C. Malhotra was to give evidence. They appeared in court at about 1.45 p.m. and Jagdev Inder Singh produced the summoned record. Out of the four documents summoned by the petitioner, his counsel got exhibited only three documents and one document which was absence report of the petitioner was not exhibited. After giving evidence when Jagdev Inder Singh was returning to the office of Accountant General along with the files summoned from him he was followed by Rajinder Singh-petitioner. At about 2.30 p.m. when he reached near Neelam cinema, Rajinder Singh came running from behind and started abusing him. Jagdev Inder Singh tried to prevent any untoward incident but when he reached near the police post, the petitioner caught hold of him and tried to snatch the bag containing the record. He also gave him blows. A constable on duty, namely, Raghbir Singh came out of the police post and on seeing him the petitioner ran away. The constable did not chase the petitioner as he was alone in the police post. The matter was reported to the Accountant -General, who advised Jagdev Inder Singh to file a complaint. A complaint was, thus, handed over to the Accountant General as well as to the police and on the basis of the same case F.I.R. No. 565 was registered on 28.8.1985. Rajinder Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the above referred first information report registered at Police Station, Central, Chandigarh and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) THE petitioner alleged that he was not supplied the copies of the documents attached with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. nor he was given copies of the documents which he had summoned from the prosecution. The case against him was false and as such he filed a suit against respondents No. 2 and 3 and one B.S. Sandhu for damages. In their written statements in that suit both respondents No. 2 and 3 pleaded that they were not aware of the contents of the first information report registered against him. In this way they had disowned the incident alleged to have taken place on 14.11.1984. It was further contended that there was delay of 9-1/2 months in reporting the matter to the police and even then the copies of the documents were not supplied to him.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties.