LAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAL Singh and others have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR 15 dated 18.3.1995 under Sections 382, 365, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code of Police Station Bhadaur. This FIR came up to be registered on the basis of a complaint given by Sukhdev Singh son of Jagrup Singh, the Conductor of the Bus No. PAB-9819 of Guru Nanak Transport Company, Nainewal. A reading of the FIR (Annexure P1) shows that the following allegations have been made there :-

(2.) THAT on 28.2.1995 the said Bus left the Bus Stand, Bhadaur, at 4.45 p.m. when Darshan Singh and others took a lift in the bus, but stopped it, after threatening the driver, near the truck union, Bhadaur.

(3.) A reading of this FIR certainly discloses the commission of cognizable offence. But the learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand contended that Darshan Singh, Balour Singh, Amarjit Singh and Lal Singh were partners of the Guru Nanak Transport Company which owned the bus though Balour Singh had ceased to be a partner from 3.8.1998. The learned counsel, therefore, contends that there cannot be an allegation that the owners of the bus themselves had committed such offence and there cannot be a complaint of this type. He, therefore, contends that this is an abuse of process of law. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon Annexure P/2 which is a copy of a certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms showing the name of the firm as well as the partners. But, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that even if the allegation that the petitioners-party were also partners of the business, it does not give them the right to beat the Conductor, driver and take the bus after threatening them, and that the petitioners-party, if they were really the owners or representing the partners, they should take appropriate proceedings according to law. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that a case is clearly made out from the FIR.