VIVEK S Vs. SURINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Surinder Singh filed a criminal complaint under various Section of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and some others (Annexure P.1). In the complaint it was alleged that the petitioners met the complainant in third week of July 1984 and tried to associate him in the making of a Punjabi film. Subsequently, in the first week of August the petitioners along with some other persons came to the Cement Depot of the complainant and it was settled that at the initial stage each one of them would contribute Rs. 20,000/ -. Thereafter on August 30, 1984 the petitioners and their companies are said to have robbed the complainant of Rs. 14,000/ - and also caused fire arm injuries to him. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after recording preliminary evidence in support of the complaint, summoned the petitioners and others accused under Sections 307, 397 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, vide an order dated October 29, 1985 (Annexure P.2). The petitioners filed revision against the order of summoning which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide an order dated February 5, 1986 (Annexure P.3). The complaint as well as the aforesaid orders of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, are sought to be quashed by the petitioners in this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) IT is held in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Krishan Rohtagi and others, 1983(1) Recent Criminal Report 73 (SC) : 1983(2) C.L.R. 79, that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are without adding or subtracting, anything if no offence is made out then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code. In the present case manifestly on the face of the complaint and the preliminary evidence recorded by the Magistrate, the offences, for which the petitioners have been summoned, are disclosed.

(3.) THE contention of the learned petitioner's counsel is that anticipatory bail was granted by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, to the petitioner Vivek because a copy of his passport produced before the Court indicated that he had been out of the country from June 13, 1984 to August 26, 1984. It is, therefore, contended that this petitioner could not have met the complainant in the third week of July 1984 or first week of August 1984 as alleged in the complaint. It is consequently submitted that the petitioner Vivek has been apparently falsely involved in the complaint. In my view this plea of alibi which the petitioner Vivek is entitled to plead in this defence cannot be taken note of at this preliminary stage of summoning of the accused. It will be open to the petitioners to put forth this plea at the appropriate stage before the committing Court or the trial Court. The granting of anticipatory bail to Vivek on whatever ground is wholly immaterial while considering the matter of quashing the complaint or the order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused. For aforesaid reasons this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.