JAIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAIPAL Singh petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court for quashing the order dated 14, 1978, made on a complaint of Daya Chand, respondent No 2, summoning the petitioner on an accusation under section 436, (sic) Penal Code, and the subsequent proceedings, primarily on the ground (i) that regarding the very occurrence an F.I.R. was lodged by the said Daya Chand with the police on 8.10.1977 which was cancelled on 3.2.1978, and procreating under section 182 I.P.C. had been launched against him (2) that the petitioner could not have been (sic) by the trial Magistrate without first examining on oath all the with (sic) on whose testimony the complainant Daya Chand had (sic) and (1) that the assertions made in the complaint did not (sic) offence including the one under section 436 I.P.C. inasmuch as the hut, which was said to have been set on fire by the petitioner did not constitute a building as envisaged in section 436 I.P.C.

(2.) THE aforesaid contentions have been desired to be appreciated in the it be of the facts that certain plot was owned by one Sultan Singh one of the witnesses of the complainant Daya Chand. This Sultan Singh, had lodged a complaint for starting proceedings, under sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and some others. On the basis of that complaint, police put up Kalendra under sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. on 5.10.1977. On 17.10.1977 the petitioners said to have taken the possession of the said plot of Sultan Singh and with the brick lying thereon had enclosed the said plot by constructing four walls, on the midnight of 7/8 -10 -1977 Daya Chand's but (Chhapper) radioing the said plot was said to have been set on fire by the petitioner An F.I.R. regarding the said incident was lodged by Daya Chard on 8.10.1977 at 5.50 p.m. On 20.1.1978 the present complaint was filed by Daya Chand in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. On 3.2.1978 the F.I.R. dated 8.10.1977 is said to have been cancelled by the very Magistrate, that is, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. On 14.7.1978 the very Magistrate had examined the complainant and his two witnesses and on 14.8.1978 older, annexure P.2, summoning the petitioner under section 436, I.P.C. was passed. In response to the said summons the petitioner appeared before the said Magistrate on 21.10.1978 and there after for the consideration of the case three further adjournments were given which were 15.11.1978, 25.2.1979, 4.8.1979 and it is thereafter that the petitioner filed the present petition for quashing of the order, annexure P.2, and the subsequent proceedings

(3.) IT may be observed that the complaint was filed on 23.1.1978 perhaps on coming to know as to what the police proposed to do with the F.I.R. The police submitted its report to the Magistrate on the basis whereof on 3.2.1978 the F.I.R. was cancelled. The moment the F.I.R. was cancelled the police investigation came to an end and therefore, the question of staying of the enquiry or trill of the complaint any further did not arise, and the learned Magistrate was free to resume the enquiry into complaint on 3.2.1978.