LAKHI SINGH Vs. JAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sarvshri Lakhi Singh, Ishwar Singh, Tara Chand, Wazir Singh, Sultan Singh and Ishwar Singh have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure against Shri Jai Singh son of Ranjit Singh, resident of village Bhagpur, Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak, for the quashment of complaint dated 18-9-1989 (Annexure P6) filed by the respondent (Jai Singh) under Sections 323/341/342/343/500/506, Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jhajjar, and he charges Annexures P7 to P11, framed against the petitioners, and the order dated 20th March, 1996 (Annexure P 12), contending that the complaint, charges and the order, referred to above, are in the nature of an abuse of the process of the Court.

(2.) It has been alleged by the petitioners that on the night of 21st/22nd July, 1988 one Chottu Ram resident of village Bhagpur died, and on the basis of that FIR No. 83 dated 22-7-1988 under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Beri, District Rohtak. Investigation of the case was entrusted to the S.H.O. but no progress was made in the said case. Due to lack of progress the case was eventually transferred to the Inspector, Criminal Investigation Department (C.I.D.) by the D.I.G. (C.I.D.) Haryana, on 26-10-1988 (P 1). The said case was investigated by the said unit and eventually due to representations etc. on the lack of progress the case diary was sent to the Inspector (C.I.D.) Crime, Madhuban, on 31-3-1989 (P2). In pursuance of the case being transferred to the C.I.D. (Crime Branch), Madhuban, the same was entrusted to petitioner No. 1 Lakhi Singh, Inspector. While investigating that matter he visited village Bhagpur several times in the month of April/May, 1989 and met the Panchayat and the family members of the deceased. During the course of investigation the needle of suspicion centred on Prem Singh and Sahaj Ram, son and nephew of the deceased, respectively, and those persons never made themselves available before the Investigating Officer. On 12-9-1989 the petitioners again proceeded to the place of occurrence for investigation, but Prem Singh and Sahaj Ram could not become available. Jai Singh respondent was directed to arrange the presence of the aforesaid persons before petitioner No. 1 on the next date. On 14-9-1989 those two suspects namely Prem Singh and Sahaj Ram appeared before the Investigating Officer along with respondent Jai Singh and they were interrogated about the death of Chottu. Since the needle of suspicion was being focussed upon Prem Singh and Sahaj Ram, a false complaint was lodged against the petitioner on 18-9-1989 by respondent Jai Singh in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar, under Sections 323/341/342/343/500/506, Indian Penal Code, in order to put pressure upon the petitioners on the basis of the complaint, statements of Sahaj Ram, Raja Ram and Jai Singh were recorded on 24-5-1990 and 2-7-1990, and the petitioners were summoned by the trial Magistrate. In the meanwhile the petitioners were transferred from Madhuban to various places and they were not aware of the fact that the Magistrate had issued the summons against them. Since the petitioners could not be summoned on account of their transfers, the learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioners and they appeared on different dates as mentioned in para No. 9 of the writ petition and were released on bail except petitioner No. 6, who was already in custody in some other case. On 20th March, 1996 the trial Magistrate framed charges against the petitioners under Sections 323/342, Indian Penal Code (P7 to P11). The petitioners protested to the framing of the charges by the learned Magistrate but their objections were dismissed.

(3.) The challenge in the present writ petition has been given to the complaint dated 18-9-1989 filed by the respondent, to the charges framed on 20th March, 1996 and the order of the even date vide which the objections of the petitioners were rejected. The main ground taken by the petitioners in the present petition is that they could not be prosecuted without prior sanction under Section 197, Cr. P.C., that they were not given an opportunity to show that the alleged acts were committed in exercise of their official duties and they could not be personally held liable; that the complaint did not lead any pre-charge evidence; that the criminal complaint is a counter-blast to the act of investigation done on the part of the petitioners when a suspicion was placed upon Prem Singh and Sahaj Ram.