The Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of a criminal complaint filed as a material improvement over a previously cancelled FIR, noting the delay argument would be handled by expediting the trial.
CompellIed to expedite the trial of the underlying complaint to prevent delay and harassment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. M. No.21867-M of 2009 Date of Decision:8.10.2010
Kamaljit Singh and others
.... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present: Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Advocate for Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint dated 11.4.2005 (Annexure P-1) filed under Sections 452/325/323/506/34 IPC and the summoning order dated 30.1.2009 (Annexure P-2) issued in case titled as “Krishan Lal v. Kamaljit Singh and others by the Court of learned SDJM, Nabha.
While praying for quashing of complaint, the only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the incident is of the year 2002 and for the same incident FIR No.9 dated 31.1.2003 under Sections 325,323,34 IPC Police Station Bhadson, against the present petitioners was got registered. However, the cancellation report was filed in the said FIR and during the pendency of the same, the complaint in question has been filed while making material improvement with respect to the same incident. Thus, the present complaint is only an improvement, should be quashed.
Crl. M. No.21867-M of 2009 -2-
It is further stated that the matter is pending since 2002 and the respondents are trying to delay the same and not allowing the trial to proceed.
The first argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted in as much as in para 7 of the complaint itself the reasons for filing the complaint in spite of the FIR has been mentioned. The para 7 of the complaint reads thus:
“The police of P.S. Bhadson in connivance and the collusion with accused persons submitted the cancellation report against the wished and consent of the complainant by ignoring the real facts regarding the incident/occurrence took place in residential house of the complainant and without verifying the facts regarding occurrence and without investigation and even without visiting the place of occurrence. Thereupon the complainant moved the application regarding the actual occurrence to the higher police authoriteis for taking necessary action against the accused persons, but has no effect. The copy of the same is Annexure C-7 attached herewith. The complainant many times approached the police of P.S. Bhadson and requested them to take action against the accused persons, but the police did not take any action against them because the accused persons having good say in the police as well as in the politics and also having a good political influence also. Lastly, a week back,a the police of P.S. Bhadson totally refused to take any action against the accused persons,
Crl. M. No.21867-M of 2009
-3-
hence this complaint.”
Moreover, it is pointed out that respondent No.2-complainant had filed protest petition in the aforesaid cancellation report and the cognizance of the same has been taken. Thus, the argument that FIR is cancelled will also not help.
The third arguments that there is material improvement in the complaint is of no help at this stage as the same is matter of evidence and the complaint cannot be quashed on this ground alone.
With respect to the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter is pending since 2002 and the respondents are only delaying the same to harass the petitioners, the same can be taken care of. Accordingly, the concerned Court is directed to expedite the trial in complaint dated 11.4.2005 (Annexure P-1) filed under Sections 452/325/323/506/34 titled as “Krishan Lal v. Kamaljit Singh and others.
Disposed of in the above terms.
( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE
8.10.2010 rajeev
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal complaint filed with material improvements over a previously cancelled FIR can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the court should direct the lower court to expedite the trial to address alleged delay by the respondents.
Whether a complaint can be challenged solely on the ground of delay in the trial.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kamaljit Singh and others
State of Punjab
complainant
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
