SUKHJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter 'BNSS') for quashing of the impugned FIR bearing No.106 dtd. 30/5/2020 under Ss. 353, 186 and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Ahmedgarh, District Malerkotla (Annexure P-5), as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including final report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. and charge-sheet dtd. 30/8/2022.

(2.) The facts of the present case, tersely put, are that the petitioners constructed an unauthorized shed within the limits of Municipal Council Ahmedgarh without obtaining the necessary sanction. Since the construction of the shed was illegal, therefore on 4/9/2019, the operation to demolish the shed was initiated. However, in an attempt to obstruct the demolition work, the petitioners declared that if the operation continued, their entire family would die by suicide by consuming poison, and the officials carrying out the demolition would be held responsible. Given that official work was disrupted by the death threats extended by the petitioners, a letter was written by the Joint Deputy Director, Municipal Council, Ahmedgarh to the SHO, P.S. Sadar Ahmedgarh for taking appropriate legal action against them. Resultantly, the FIR (supra) was registered against the petitioners.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the registration of the FIR is an abuse of the process of law, given the bar imposed by Sec. 195(1) of the Cr.P.C. It was argued that the trial court failed to recognize its lack of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Sec. 186 of the IPC, as Sec. 195(1) of the Cr.P.C. mandates that such cognizance can only be taken upon a criminal complaint filed by the concerned department before the Magistrate. Furthermore, while Sec. 186 of the IPC is expressly enumerated in Sec. 195(1) of the Cr.P.C., Sec. 353 is not. However, the bar under Sec. 195(1) would still apply, as per the settled legal principle that it extends to cases where offences forming part of the same transaction include any of the offences mentioned therein. Learned counsel relied upon Mahendra Kumar Sonker vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 Cri. LR SC 958; Ram Kumar vs. The State of Haryana, 1998 (1) CLR 633 and Ramji BhikhaKoli and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat 1999 Cri.L.J, in this regard. Lastly, it was asserted that merely shouting at or threatening a person does not constitute criminal force or assault. Consequently, the essential ingredients required to invoke Sec. 353 of the IPC are absent in the present case.