ANIL DHAWAN Vs. GURNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant petition, inherent powers of this Court have been evoked under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to seek the quashing of a private complaint (annexure P-4) filed by respondent Gurnam Singh and the summoning order annexure P-2 dated August 25, 2005 for trial under Section 323/341 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The summoning order annexure P-2 reads as follows :-

(2.) THROUGH there was no reason for the trial Court to avoid referring to the facts and express the reasons for summoning the accused on appreciation of preliminary evidence, yet the trial Court opted to summon the petitioners without even mentioning the ground which had persuaded the Court for summoning the petitioners to face trial. The petitioners questioned the legality and propriety of the summoning order under Sections 323/341/34 IPC before the Sessions Court, on the grounds that the respondent had concealed the true facts having violated the order under Section 144 Cr. P.C. debarring the collection of five or more persons on October 15, 2002 when the Chief Minister had visited Shahbad. On the instigation of respondent, the mob was led and damage was caused to the Government property including the jeep of the SHO, Pehowa. The police jeep was set on fire by pouring petrol on it. The respondent had been booked in a criminal case, FIR No.349 dated October 15, 2002, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 283, 332, 353, 341, 427, 436, 506 and 120-B IPC read with Sections 3/4 PDP Act 1984. As the mob was led by respondent, to avoid the wrath of crowd, he was taken to CIA, Kurukshetra to avoid any untoward incident. Statutory protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. was put-forth in the revision but the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissed the revision petition vide order dated January 16, 2007 holding that no documents tendered by the petitioners could be taken into consideration unless and until the petitioners took part in the proceeding. The revisional Court held that the statement of respondent-complainant and three other witness indicated that the complainant was confined by the police and fist and slap blows were given to him. Regarding the applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C. , the revisional Court held that illegally confining a person and giving him slap and fist blows cannot be considered as part of official duties. The petitioners have sought the quashing of the complaint, annexure P-4 summoning order annexure P-2 and the order of revisional Court annexure P-1 dated January 16, 2007.

(3.) A reference to the allegations in the complaint annexure-4 are relevant. The relevant allegations in context to Sections 341 and 323 IPC for which the petitioners have been summoned are to the effect that the complainant was President of Bhartiya Kisan Union, District Kurukshtera. The Election of Director, Zone V Shahbad Sugar Mill was to be held on October 11, 2002. The complainant-respondent being President of Bhartiya Kisan Union had been fighting for the rights of farmers, agriculturists and other poor persons and was a representative of the people to the Government. The complainant- respondent was apprehending foul play and corrupt practices during the elections in favour of few candidates including one Banarsi Dass. Election was held on October 11, 2002 in the premises of Shahbad Sugar Mill. The complainant-respondent remained present there along with his agents and caught 150 persons casting bogus votes. Said fact was brought to the knowledge of the person on the spot including SDM, Pehowa. The complainant and all his supporters were forcibly pushed out of the polling booths by the supporters of Banarsi Dass, who was sponsored by Indian National Lok Dal with the patronage of the officers on the spot, namely, SDM, Pehowa, DSP Pehowa and DSP Kurukshetra. The complainant was forcibly pushed out of the polling booth. Forcible possession of the polling booth was taken and bogus votes unlawfully and illegally were casted in favour of Banarsi Dass and illegal booth capturing was done. A physical procession was taken out by the complainant and 250 persons in front of Shahbad Police Station and a dharna was held which continued upto October 15, 2002. It is mentioned in the complaint that on October 15, 2002, the Chief Minister was scheduled to visit and hold a function "Sarkar Apke Dwar". The complainant and others wanted to protest against the illegal means adopted on October 11, 2002 and wanted to express their resentment. When the Chief Minister was in Rest House at 11.30 a.m. the respondent was arrested by the police and thereafter other persons were lathi charged in the presence of the complainant including several other persons were also arrested. The respondent-complainant was taken to CIA Staff, Kurukshetra at about 8.30 p.m. Petitioner No. 1 was DSP at that time. He came there and asked petitioner No. 2 Inspector, petitioner No. 3 SI and petitioner No. 4 ASI to take the respondent out of room and strip him naked and beat him to teach a lesson for protesting before the Chief Minister. The complainant was forcibly stripped at the instance of Inspector Ranbir-petitioner No.2. Petitioner No. 4 Siya Nand gave a kick on the back of complainant-respondent. The respondent fell down then Ranbir Singh and Rajinder Singh (petitioners No. 2 and 3) started giving beatings to the complainant with kicks and fists. Petitioner No. 2 Ranbir Singh and petitioner No. 3 Rajinder Singh gave slaps, kicks and fist blows on different parts of the body besides hurling filthy abuses. Rajinder Singh petitioner No. 3 forcibly removed his turban and pulled his hairs. When the respondent was being beaten, his brother Gurdip Singh and Tara Singh came to see him. Wen they intervened and asked CIA Staff as to why they were beating the respondent, they asked to flew away otherwise they would meet the same consequence. The respondent was made to stand without clothes for two hours and thereafter he was made to dress himself. It was cold. He was not given any blanket or bed sheet. Next morning, he was taken for medical check up and was produced before the Court. The abovesaid complaint was filed on the basis of illegal detention, acts of beatings, stripping, defamation, insult and reputation etc. in exercise of misuse of power.