CHANAN MAL BANSAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHANAN Mal Bansal, his son-in-law Vinod Kumar Aggarwal and a security officer employed by him in his factory 'Haryana Tubes Manufacturing Company Limited' named Chander Parkash have all the three, filed the criminal miscellaneous application No. 5041-M of 1989 for quashing of First Information Report No. 84 recorded in Police Station G.R.P. Railway Hisar, on June 13, 1989, under Sections 506/120-B, 427/148/149/186 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 121 of the Railway Act on the grounds of its being wholly vague and baseless, mala fide and an after thought, abuse of the process of the Court lodged only to harass the petitioners, lame prosecution launched against the petitioners by Railways employees at the behest of the rival business house of Jindals and not making out the commission of any criminal offence against any one, even if accepted on its face value.

(2.) AUTHOR of the FIR concerned Railway employee Lal Chand A.E.N. even though not arrayed as a party in criminal miscellaneous aforesaid, has filed the criminal miscellaneous No. 5822 of 1989 for getting himself impleaded as party to the proceedings and two more criminal miscellaneous applications Nos. 5823 and 5824-M of 1989 for bringing his reply and its annexures on record. I do not think the Court can look into anything more than the copy of the FIR, for purposes of quashing. All the three criminal miscellaneous applications filed by Lal Chand, are therefore, dismissed. The State Government of Haryana arrayed as respondent in the quashing petition has, however, not filed any reply.

(3.) RELEVANT FIR reads "To : SHO GRP Hisar, dated 13.6.1989. It is submitted that there is unmanned level crossing gate at K.M. 137/12-13 on Rewari-Hisar Railway Line. Yesterday on 12.6.1989, the Court passed an order for the closure of this level crossing. Yesterday when we alongwith the police force went to the spot for closing the said level crossing where we had erected three rail posts, we received a letter No. 1271-ST/89 from the Deputy Commissioner directing us not to take any action unless and until order of the court and other relevant papers are shown to the Deputy Commissioner. Today dated 13.6.1989, our counsel produced the Court order and the other relevant papers before the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner vide his letter No. 697-ST/1989 ordered for cancellation of the latter dated 12.6.1989 issued by him and that action may be taken in accordance with the order of the Civil Court. So, today, I along with my PW1, IOW Gangman, Area Officer, SHO GRP and other officials reached the spot and removed the Chakral of one side of the Railway 'Phatak'. Then, hooter was sounded in the factory of Shri Chanan Mal Bansal. As a result of it, about 100/150 persons in the form of mob came to us and told us that we should stop doing the work otherwise they would kill us. We had insufficient police force and, therefore, in order to save ourselves we fled away from the place. A Chakral which was removed by us was again put back in our presence and the trial posts which were installed by us yesterday were removed by them in our presence. This act has been done by the men of Chanan Mal Bansal by hatching a conspiracy to commit crime because the passage to their factory is closed if this railway phatak is closed. These persons can be identified if they are brought before us. They have caused obstruction in the discharge of our official duty and they have threatened to kill us and thus they have caused damage to the public property. Action be taken in accordance with law against them dated 13.6.1989 Sd/- Lal Chand AEN Sirsa". It would thus appear that the FIR brings out clearly the ingredients of the offences under Sections 506/120-B/427/148/149 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code and section 121 of the Railways Act. In Padam Sain v. State, Vol. LXIY 1967 PLR 40, this Court speaking through Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh (as his lordship then was) observed. "The omission of the name of an accused person from a first information report by itself is not always fatal to the prosecution case nor is enough to justify the conclusion that the accused concerned has been falsely implicated. The value which has to be attached to the first information report has to be judged in the light of various circumstances including the nature of the crime, the position of the informant and the opportunity which he had to witness the part which each of the accused played. In a case like the present, when the allegation is that a mob of 700 to 800 persons had got out of control and set fire to shop burning three persons alive, it is unreasonable to expect the informant to describe the individual part which the various culprits had played in the affair. The prosecution can prove the participation of an accused person by other evidence, direct as well as circumstantial, and learned Counsel for the State has in this case asserted that there is abundant evidence, not only circumstantial but ocular as well, against each of the eleven petitioners to connect them with the various crimes for which they are being prosecuted."