Quashed

Inderjit Singh v. Kuldip Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Aug 2010CRM-M/10260/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash a theft complaint filed against the petitioner. The court held that the complaint was an abuse of process of law as similar allegations had been previously dismissed as false by this court and an inquiry by the state.

What did the court decide?

The complaint filed by respondent-Kuldip Singh and the summoning order dated 7.12.2007 under Sections 379 IPC are quashed.

Inderjit Singh Vs Kuldip Singh — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl.M.No. M-10260/2008 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl.M.No. M-10260/2008

¶4

Date of decision: 25.8.2010.

¶5

Inderjit Singh, Ex-Sarpanch

¶6

....................Petitioners

¶7

¶8

Kuldip Singh

¶9

.....................Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh

¶11

Present: Mr.RK Dadwal,Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

None for the respondent.

¶13

Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral)

¶14

Prayer under Section 482 Cr.PC is for quashing complaint No.188/03/04 as well as subsequent proceedings including the summoning order dated 7.12.2007 (P.7) under Sections 379 IPC, pending in the Court of JMIC,Dasuya.

¶15

Facts in brief are that earlier, respondent-Kuldip Singh by filing Crl.M.No.25916-M of 2001 had levelled allegation that his 300 feet water pipe was stolen by the petitioner-Inderjit and accordingly a prayer was made for registration of a case against the petitionerInderjit. In the said petition upon notice of motion State filed reply to

¶16

Crl.M.No. M-10260/2008 2

¶17

the effect that the matter was investigated and the alleged stolen pipe was recovered from the possession of Kuldip Singh himself and after intervention of the respectables of the village the matter was compromised. Keeping in view the factual position explained in the said reply aforesaid Crl.M.No.25916-M of 2001 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6.3.2001.

¶18

After about six months thereafter, without disclosing the filing of the aforesaid petition, respondent-Kuldeep moved an application containing verbatim allegations to SSP,Hoshiarpur upon which an FIR under Section 379 IPC was registered against this petitioner-Inderjit. Thereafter petitioner-Inderjit moved this Court by filing Crl.M.No.2797 of 2002 seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR. However, due to contradictory stand taken by the respondents-police authorities in its reply to Crl.M.No.2797 of 2002, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.5.2002 (P4) directed SSP Hoshiarpur to look into the matter in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In compliance to the said order, SP Headquarter conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 20.7.2002 (P.5) to the effect that there existed inter se civil litigation between the petitioner-Inderjit and respondent-Kuldeep due to party faction and in order to settle the score and due to party faction, respondent-Kuldeep had lodged a false FIR.

¶19

A perusal of the averments made in the present petition further reveals that the respondent-Kuldeep without disclosing the

¶20

Crl.M.No. M-10260/2008 3

¶21

dismissal of his previous petition bearing Crl.M.No.25916-M of 2001 and the factum of lodging of subsequent FIR, in which the petitioner was found innocent, has again filed the present complaint against the petitioner under Sections 379/201/447/448 IPC, quashing of which is sought in the present petition.

¶22

Notice of motion was issued.

¶23

Despite service no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.

¶24

In view of the averments made in the petition, which have gone unrebutted, it is clear, that the filing of the present complaint by the respondent-Kuldeep is a blatant abuse of process of law.

¶25

Regarding the alleged theft of 300 feet of water pipe, respondent-Kuldeep had earlier approached this Court by filing Crl.M.No.25916-M of 2001, which, in view of the fact, that the alleged pipe was recovered from Kuldeep himself, as disclosed in the reply filed by the State, was dismissed. Thereafter, respondent got registered an FIR, quashing of which was sought by the petitioner-Inderjit by filing Crl.M.No.2797 of 2002, and as per directions of this Court, the matter was inquired by SP Headquarter and the allegations made in the said FIR were again found to be false. Despite all this, respondentKuldeep has now again filed the present complaint, with the same set of allegations, which is pending in the court of JMIC,Dasuya. Respondent has chosen not to contest the present petition.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid factual position, the present

¶27

Crl.M.No. M-10260/2008 4

¶28

petition is allowed and in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC, the complaint filed by respondent against petitioner- titled Kuldip Singh v. Inderjit Singh, pending in the Court of JMIC,Dasuya as well as subsequent proceedings including the summoning order dated 7.12.2007 (P.7) under Sections 379 IPC is quashed.

¶29

25.8.2010 joshi

¶30

(Jaswant Singh) Judge

Inderjit Singh v. Kuldip Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inderjit Singh v. Kuldip Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar and Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Sanjeev Goel Vs State of Punjab

Nahar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Harvinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Parmeet Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Sant Harnam Singh @ Baba Harnam Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.