RAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sarvshri Ram Chand, Bhushan and Sham Lal have filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C., read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for the quashment of the complaint under Sections 364/302/384/387/201/120-B read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and the order dated 25-3-1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. Framing charge against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 364/302/201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, as well as all the consequential proceeding arising therefrom.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioners is that they have been falsely implicated in the above mentioned complaint at the instance of respondent No. 2 Smt. Shanti, whose motive is to involve the petitioners by one way or the other in order to lower their image in the public and to harass them due to personal enmity. A totally false and concocted complaint has been filed against the petitioners. The son of respondent No. 2 died on 6-9-1991 due to drowning and the post-mortem was performed in Civil Hospital, Abohar on 7-9-1991 and the cause of death was recorded "due to drowning" as per the post-mortem report (Annexure P1). On 6-9-1991 the Rapat Roznamcha was entered at the instance of the husband of respondent No. 2 Shri Lekh Ram in Police Station City, Abohar. When the dead-body of the son of respondent No. 2 was found, the statement was recorded under Section 174, Cr. P.C. in that statement the husband of respondent No. 2 Shri Lekh Ram did not express any foul play in the death of his son, nor he expressed any suspicion against any person. Rather he stated that he did not want to take any action against any person. It is alleged by the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 Ram Chand is doing the business near the shop of Shri Lekh Ram. Initially they were having cordial relations with each other and later on their relations became strained. Shri Lekh Ram at the instance of some bad elements wanted to abduct petitioner No. 1 with the intention to kill him. As a result thereof, complaint under Sections 364, 365, 323, 506, 504, 148, 149, I.P.C. was filed by petitioner No. l against Shri Lekh Ram, his wife and others on 21-7-1994 (Annexure P3). On the basis of this complaint the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Abohar, summoned Smt. Shanti along with her husband on 7-10-1995 under Sections 365, 323 etc., I.P.C., and the said complaint is still pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Abohar, Against this summoning order dated 7-10-1995, petitioner No. 1 filed a revision petition, praying that respondent No. 2 should also be summoned under Section 364, I.P.C., Said revision petition is still pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozpur. As a counter-blast, the respondent's brother-in-law Shri Mulla Ram lodged a false F.I.R. No. 523 of 1994 under Sections 364/366, I.P.C., in Police Station, Ganga Nagar, against the petitioners, and the allegations of that F.I.R. are that the petitioners wanted to abduct the other son of respondent Smt. Shanti Devi with an intention to kill him. The petitioners were asked to appear during investigation, but no offence was allegedly committed by the petitioners and they were discharged vide order dated 6th January, 1995. Later on respondent No. 2 filed certain complaint before the S. P. Abohar, alleging that the petitioners had killed her son. No substance was found in the enquiry conducted by the S. P. and the said complaint was filed. This complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 in order to lower the petitioners in the public due to personal grudges. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a complaint against respondent No. 2 and her husband Shri Lekh Ram under Sections 500/182, IPC, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Abohar, on 6-10-1994. In that complaint respondent No. 2 Smt. Shanti and her husband Shri Lekh Ram were summoned. As a counterblast, respondent No. 2 filed the present complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Abohar, under Sections 364/302/384/387/201/120-B read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. In this complaint again a version has been made that the petitioners have killed her son. The respondent wrongly stated that no post-mortem examination was conducted. In fact, the postmortem was conducted on 7-9-1991 and the cause of death was given "due to drowning". The respondent Smt. Shanti Devi has not even made a. mention of the proceedings under Section 174, Cr. P.C., in the complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Abohar, summoned all the petitioners under Sections 302/201/120-B/34, Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 24-11-1995 (Annexure P7).

(3.) It is alleged by the petitioners that with the reading of the complaint filed by the respondent, no offence is made out. The complaint is a bundle of lies. The occurrence, according to the complainant, took place on 6-9-1991. The postmortem was conducted on 7-9-1991. In the proceedings under Section 174, Cr. P.C., it had been specifically stated by the father of the deceased that he did not want to take any action against any one and that it was a case of accidental death. The complaint had been filed after a lapse of 3 years and 4 months i.e. on 2-1-1995 and there is no explanation of this delay. The entire version given in the complaint is an afterthoughtand is clearly an abuse of the process of law. The right of speedy justice of the petitioner has been violated. All the allegations made in the complaint were very much in the knowledge of respondent No. 2, but no complaint was filed within a reasonable time. The petitioners were granted anticipatory bail. They were discharged in those cases where they were summoned by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar. The petitioners have also filed number of complaints against the respondent in which respondent No. 2 has been summoned and now as a counterblast the present complaint has been filed on 2-1-1995, which is liable to be quashed. The learned Magistrate wrongly summoned the petitioners. The case was committed to the Court of Session. It was marked to the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, who erroneously framed the charge against the petitioners under Sections 302/201/120-b/34, I.P.C. The charges have been framed by passing a non-speaking order. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not go into the material placed on the record. He did not apply his judicial mind, nor he considered broad probabilities of the case. He acted in a mechanical manner as a mouthpiece of the prosecution. It was his duty to separate the grain from the chaff.