LAWS(P&H)-1998-1-198

JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On January 13, 1998
JOGINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal misc. petition No. 16956 -M of 1996 filed by Joginder Singh and others under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby they have prayed for the quashing of FIR No. 43 dated 8.10.1995 under Section 506/148/149/427 Indian Penal Code (Annexure P -1) registered at Police Station, Banur and the order dated 27.2.1997 (Annexure P -3) framing charge against them.

(2.) THE facts set out in the prosecution case are as follows :

(3.) ON 8.10.1995 a conference was scheduled by CPI (M) for expressing views on terrorism and separatism brewing up in the country threatening the unity and integrity of the nation. Sh. Gursharan Singh, a renowned dramatist was to enact a play. When the workers of CPI (M) laid the stage and artists came to enact the play, attack was unleashed and CPI (M) workers were injured. The stage was broken. The conference was to be addressed by the main leaders of Punjab CPI(M) namely Mangat Ram Pasla and Prof. Balwant Singh. Joginder Singh - petitioner No. 1 incited the attackers to break the stage so that the conference was not held. He raised lalkara inciting the attackers named Saun Singh, Baldev Singh, Jaswant Singh, Titar Singh, Raghbir Singh, Rachhpal Singh and Sukhdev Singh son of Pritam Singh resident of village Kalomajra, Teh. Rajpura who were armed with dangs. They threatened to kill CPI(M) workers and they broke the stage. Giani Ram Lal and Ranjit Singh witnessed the occurrence The matter was reported to the police by Inderjit Singh. In support of their prayer for quashing, it is submitted by Joginder Singh and others that the continuance, of the case is nothing but an abuse of the process of law/Court. FIR contains false version with a view to harass the petitioners. The back ground is that the petitioners are supporting the action of the Gram Panchayat of village Kalomajra through its Sarpanch -Gurmukh Singh. The Gram Panchayat has got orders for the demolition of shops constructed on Panchayat land by Ram Lal son of Jeon Ram from the DDPO/Collector dated 16.8.1995. In the said proceedings, Ranjit Singh son of Lal Singh, the alleged eye -witness of this case gave statement in favour of Ram Lal. Said Ranjit Singh had contested the election against Gurmukh Singh father of Raghbir Singh -petitioner herein but lost the election. He had been put up by the party of Ram Lal at election against Gurmukh Singh. The alleged eye witnesses with a view to avoid the demolition of the shops constructed on the Panchayat land approached CPI(M) workers. The police was approached in pursuance of calculated move. The police obliged them by implicating eight petitioners. In the aforesaid case 9.11.1995 was fixed as the date for demolition by Tehsildar, Rajpura but demolition could not be carried out. Civil Revision No. 4484 of 1995 was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed orders and in pursuance of those orders, police came to take possession. Case FIR No. 43 dated 8.10.1995 ibid is a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the Gram Panchayat through Sarpanch Gurmukh Singh father of Raghbir Singh -petitioner, against whom Ranjit Singh alleged eye - witness unsuccessfully fought election to the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kalomajra. If injuries had really been caused to CPI(M) workers that day they would have got themselves medically examined. Strange enough, they did not got themselves medically examined. It is not mentioned by witnesses as to which accused caused injuries and on which part of the body of the injured, and on the body of which injured. If tractor had been ploughed into the stage, the stage set up with 8/10 benches of small size and 4/5 benches of bigger size would have broken altogether. In this case, however, only one bench with two broken legs has been taken into possession. The prosecution case is based on inimical and motivated witnesses. In statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there is no mention of the stage having been broken with tractor having ploughed into it.