Dismissed

Harjap Singh @ Rossi v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Nov 2010CRM-M/1075/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 seeking quashing of an FIR involving alleged rape and assault. Relying on State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal, the court held that serious allegations against a specifically named accused prevent quashing, as it would not serve the interests of justice.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing of FIR No. 178 dated 19.9.2009 was dismissed.

Harjap Singh @ Rossi Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M- 1075 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 1075 of 2010 Date of Decision : November 18, 2010

Harjap Singh @ Rossi

........Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another ........Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present : Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the FIR No. 178 dated 19.9.2009, under Sections 452,354,323,34 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana.

¶15

The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-4) read as under :-

¶16

“Complainant Lachhmi w/o Hans Raj, aged about 45 years r/o Bazigar Basti, P.S., Sadar Ludhiana, Sadar Ludhiana City, Punjab. Stated that I am a resident of above mentioned address with my children and family. I have three daughters and one son Vijay Kumar aged about 19 years. On 16.9.09, after having

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M- 1075 of 2010

¶18

¶19

the dinner, my son Vijay Kumar went to sleep in the room, I laid a cot in the varanda and slept, my husband went to sleep on the plot outside. At about 11.00 p.m. Harjap Singh @ Rossi r/o Dad, entered our house after opening the outer door, who was armed with a dang and tried to commit rape on me. He was accompanied by an other person also. On this when I raised an alarm, my son Vijay on hearing my cries came out of the room. At that point of time Harjap Singh armed with stick gave a blow of stick to my son Vijay Kumar, which hit him on his left elbow. When we raised alarm, on hearing it my brother in law (Jeth) Maan Singh came in, then Harjap Singh attacked my brother in law with stick which hit him on his head. The person accompanying Harjap Singh, was also armed with a stick gave a blow on the back of my brother in law. We raised an alarm Maar Ditta-2, the people of locality also came among whom Surjit Kumar Panch. Kuljeet Singh s/o Man Singh, Mohinder Pal s/o Moti Ram, Gurmeet Singh s/o Harbans Lal, Parkash Kaur w/o Maan Singh, Harbans Kaur w/o Joga Ram r/o Bazigar Basti Dad came present, then the person accompanying Harjap ran away from the spot. Harjap Singh was rounded up by them and Surjit Kumar called up at 100 No. and the employees of PCR came present. Harjap Singh @ Rossi was handed over to them. Then we got admitted my son Vijay Kumar and my brother in law Maan Singh to the Civil Hospital where they are undergoing treatment. Arm of my son has been fractured. The main reason of confrontation is that one Sarabjit

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M- 1075 of 2010

¶21

¶22

Kaur w/o Ginder Ram resides in my neighbourhood and Rosi has illicit relations with Sarabjeet and usually visits her home. We stop Harjap from this. In this confrontation, to take a revenge Harjap Singh tried to commit rape on me and has hurt my son and brother-in-law. Legal action be taken against them. I can identify the person accompanying Rossi if he comes in front of me. Statement has been recorded to you, has been heard and is correct. Till today efforts for our compromise have been made but has failed.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was in police custody on 16.9.2009, the alleged day of occurrence. FIR had been registered after 3 days of the alleged offence.

¶24

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the petitioner was not in police custody on 16.9.2009. Rather the petitioner was brought along by the police party on 16.9.2009 after he had committed the alleged offence and was got medically examined on 17.9.2009 as petitioner had also suffered injuries. Petitioner, however, did not appear before the police to suffer any statement qua the injuries on his person.

¶25

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no ground for quashing the FIR is made out.

¶26

In the case of State of Haryana vs . Bhajan Lal , , 1992 Supp(1)

¶27

Supreme Court Cases 335 , the Apex Court has held as under:-

¶28

“The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be

¶29

Crl. Misc. No. M- 1075 of 2010

¶30

¶31

exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

¶32

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶33

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶34

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶35

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶36

Crl. Misc. No. M- 1075 of 2010

¶37

¶38

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶39

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

¶40

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

¶41

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”

¶42

The plea taken by the petitioner that he was already in police

¶43

Crl. Misc. No. M- 1075 of 2010

¶44

¶45

custody on the day of occurrence has been denied by the State. In para 5 of the reply it has been submitted as under :-

¶46

“That the contents of Para No. 5 of the petition are incorrect and hence denied. Neither the petitioner was way laid by the said persons nor was he given beatings as alleged. It is absolutely wrong that the petitioner was kept in confinement till 18.09.2010. In fact on 16.09.2009 when the petitioner had committed house trespass and outraged the modesty of the complainant, then the present petitioner had also received some simple injuries and the petitioner was brought along by the police party on 16.09.2009 and was let off and on the next day i.e. 17.09.2009, the petitioner was got medically checked up from Civil Hospital, Ludhiana but apprehending his arrest, the petitioner did not appear before the police to make statement regarding the injuries on his person.”

¶47

Serious allegations have been levelled in the FIR against the petitioner. The petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR. In these circumstances, it would not be in the interest of justice to quash the FIR. Dismissed.

¶48

(SABINA)

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

November 18, 2010 Anand

Harjap Singh @ Rossi v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjap Singh @ Rossi v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bachitar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Abhinav Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Gopi Chand Vs State of Punjab

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Dharampal Vs State of Punjab