DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No. 21/23 dated 10.6.1995, under Sections 447/506/148/149 IPC, registered at police station Lambran, tehsil and district Jalandhar. An FIR was lodged by Ujjagar Singh respondent No. 3 in respect of an occurrence taking place on 31.5.1995 in which the petitioners (namely Darshan Singh, Harbans Singh, Sukhwinder Singh, Tarlok Singh, Makhan Singh, all residents of village Bhode Saprai, tehsil and district Jalandhar and Sahib Singh @ Sabbi, resident of village Quadianwali, tehsil and district Jalandhar) alongwith other hired persons armed with deadly weapons, such as fire-arms, reached the land of the informant in four tractors and started destroying the crops standing in the fields. They threatened to kill the informant and the members of his family, who ran away from the spot. These accused and their associates, however, attempted to kill the wife of Ujjagar Singh, when she was run over by the tractor and suffered injuries. The ladies of the family of the complainant were insulted. The wife and daughters of the complainant were given beatings. The matter was reported to the police, but no action was taken. Later on the FIR was registered on 10-6-1995.

(2.) THIS FIR is sought to be quashed on the grounds that the complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police and the impugned FIR are nothing but an abuse of law and to give the civil disputes a colour of the criminal offences. The family members of the landowners have been implicated and while doing so, the name of Palwinder Singh son of Harbans Singh has also been added in the FIR, who happens to be an N.R.I, living in Canada and who was not present in India on the day of occurrence. It is further mentioned that the story, as mentioned in the FIR, is so improbable that its concoction is proved by the narration of the facts. The accused are said to be armed with fire-arms, but no such recovery of fire-arms was made from them, as is clear from the recovery memo Annxure P-9. It was further mentioned that the complainant failed in getting the relief from the civil court, which would be amply clear from the documents filed as Annexures P1 to P7 when he chose the criminal forum to settle the score. The State machinery, it was averred, should not be allowed to be misused at the behest of a dishonest person, who did not state the true facts before the civil court and did not avail the remedy under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was contended that it was a fit case in which even the investigation should not be allowed to proceed.

(3.) ON facts, it was alleged by respondent No. 1 that the investigation into the averments made in the FIR were still in progress. The possession of the disputed land was never handed over to the petitioners through the police. The respondents No. 2 and 3 were in cultivating possession of agency of the civil suit (No. 273 of 1991) which was filed by him for permanent injunction to protect his possession over the land measuring 46 Kanals 01 marla. The petitioners Sukhwinder Pal Singh, Harbans Singh and Kulwinder Singh were impleaded as defendants in that suit. It was further alleged in the reply that the petitioners had been committing the offences from March 1995 to May 1995 and they have been successfully escaping legal action. On the other hand, the petitioners are getting the entire family of the answering respondent/Ujjagar Singh detained by the Police. Regarding the documents annexed as Annexures P2 to P5, it was alleged that these documents were the result of fraud, threat, duress and mis-representation on the part of the accused party. The answering respondent had already challenged the documents Annexures P2 to P5, when he learnt for the first time that a document (Annexure P5) purported to be an affidavit of the answering respondent, has been forged by the accused-party, which was never sworn in by him, as alleged by the petitioners. 6. A perusal of the replies filed by the respondents will go to show that the occurrence was alleged to have taken place involving the petitioners and some other persons, on 31.5.1995. The report of the occurrence was not recorded promptly and it was only after the respondent No. 3 approached the higher authorities that the FIR could be registered on 10.6.1995. The matter is still under investigation. Assuming the averments made in the FIR, the commission of the offences mentioned therein is, prima-facie disclosed. Whether such an occurrence took place or whether such an occurrence is possible/probable or not, are the matters to be taken into consideration at the trial of the case. It is a settled view of law that if the facts mentioned in the FIR/complaint are assumed to be true and the offences are found to have been shown as committed, the FIR or the complaint will not be quashed. It is only in rare cases where no offence is, prima facie, disclosed from the FIR/complaint and where the FIR/complaint is the result of an ulterior motive to humiliate and harass the accused rather than vindicate the stand of the complainant/informant, the FIR or complaint can be quashed. The investigation of the case will not be scuttled on the mere averments made in the petition. In the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) R.C.R. 383, the Apex Court has laid the following categories of cases wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be used for quashing the criminal proceedings :-