Allowed

Ram Karan @ Guddi and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 May 2013CRM-M/1172/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Article 226 petition, the High Court quashed a criminal complaint alleging caste-based assault and land dispute. The Court held the complaint to be false due to lack of specific date of occurrence, contrary reports from revenue officials present at the spot, and absence of political m

What did the court decide?

Cross Appeal against the Order in the above title Cr. Misc. No. 106/2013

Ram Karan @ Guddi and Ors. Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRL. MISC. No.M-1172 OF 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 23rd MAY, 2013

¶3

Ram Karan @ Guddi & others

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab & another

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr. H. S. Randhawa, Advocate for Mr. P. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Mikhail Kad, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶12

¶13

L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Accused- Ram Karan @ Guddi and three others have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing criminal complaint No.217 dated 20.11.2005 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, instituted by respondent No.2-complainant Gurjant Singh against the petitioners, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶15

CRL. MISC. No.M-1172 OF 2011

¶16

-2-

¶17

Respondent No.2 has alleged in the complaint that petitioners are father-in-law, husband, brother-in-law and nephew-in-law of the then Sarpanch whereas complainant was Member, Panchayat. The petitioners had forcibly taken possession of land of phirni and shamlat land and had sold the land belonging to school without prior permission of Deputy Director. The complainant was taking steps to dispossess the petitioners from the said land according to law and some other persons Sukhdev Singh etc. were helping the complainant for the same. Sub-Divisional Magistrate had verbally appointed Tehsildar Mr. Nehra and Patwari Mr. Rajwinder Singh to visit the spot regarding the said dispute. They along with Kanungo Pritpal Singh reached the spot about 8.30 am. The complainant along with Sukhdev Singh, Nasib Singh and Guljar Singh and another Nasib Singh was also present. All the four petitioners got angry. Petitioner No.1 was armed with hockey and petitioner No.4 was armed with danda whereas petitioners No.2 and 3 were empty handed. Petitioner No.2 slapped Charan Singh. Petitioner No.3 caught Charan Singh by the neck. Petitioners No.1 and 4 gave kick blow to Charan Singh. The complainant intervened to rescue him. Petitioners also threatened to kill the complainant. The complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. He was abused by the accused by caste. The complainant along with Sukhdev Singh etc. went to police station but no action was taken by the police, necessitating the filing of the complaint.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶19

case file.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that no date of occurrence has been mentioned in the complaint. It was also submitted that

¶21

CRL. MISC. No.M-1172 OF 2011

¶22

-3-

¶23

application moved by complainant to Senior Superintendent of Police was enquired into by Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) who recorded statements of Patwari, Kanungo and Naib Tehsildar also, who were present on the spot at the time of alleged occurrence. It was reported by the enquiry officer that there was no truth in the application moved by the complainant and no such occurrence, as alleged, had taken place. It was thus argued that the instant complaint is patently false.

¶24

Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant on the other hand contended that the occurrence took place on 11.011.2005 the date of the complaint itself. It was also argued that Sub-Divisional Magistrate had written to the police station on the same day for enquiring into the incident but even then action was not taken and therefore complaint was instituted on the same day. It was argued that affidavits of Sukhdev Singh etc. were annexed with the complaint in support of averments made therein.

¶25

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. There is no date of occurrence mentioned in the impugned criminal complaint. Contention of counsel for complainant that the occurrence took place on 11.11.2005 itself-the date of filing the complaint, cannot be accepted in the absence of any averment to this effect in the complaint. Moreover, the aforesaid contention of counsel for the complainant would further falsify the complainant’s version. It appears to be highly improbable that the occurrence took place some time after at 8.30 am and thereafter complainant and others went to the police station and thereafter they also instituted complaint in the Court on the same day without waiting for police action. It is all the more surprising that when even Sub-Divisional Maigistrate had

¶26

CRL. MISC. No.M-1172 OF 2011

¶27

-4-

¶28

allegedly written to the police for enquiring into the incident, even then the complainant had instituted the complaint on the same day in the Court. Thus entire version of the complainant is untenable.

¶29

In addition to the aforesaid, the complainant had made application to Senior Superintendent of Police regarding the same incident and it was enquired into by DSP. Admittedly Naib Tehsildar, Patwari and Kanungo were present at the spot when the alleged occurrence took place as mentioned in the complaint itself. Statements of all the said three officials were recorded during enquiry and they denied the alleged occurrence having taken place. There is no reason why all the said three officials would have denied the alleged occurrence, if it had taken place in their presence. No enmity with them has been alleged by the complainant. Thus enquiry report by DSP based on statements of aforesaid three revenue officials (who were admittedly present at the spot), as mentioned in letter Annexure P-3, that no such incident has taken place, further makes the prosecution of petitioners pursuant to impugned complaint, untenable.

¶30

Counsel for respondent No.2, after seeking instructions, also stated that no eviction petition under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, had been filed against the petitioners for their eviction from alleged land of shamlat/phirni, of which petitioners have allegedly taken forcible possession. Thus motive for the alleged occurrence is also not borne out.

¶31

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that prosecution of the petitioners, pursuant to impugned complaint, would be abuse of process of

¶32

CRL. MISC. No.M-1172 OF 2011

¶33

-5-

¶34

Court and would result in miscarriage of justice. In order to secure the ends of justice, impugned criminal complaint is required to be quashed.

¶35

Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and impugned criminal complaint Annexure P-1 is quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

¶36

23^rd May, 2013 ‘raj’

¶37

(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE

Ram Karan @ Guddi and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Karan @ Guddi and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Rai etc. Vs State of Pb.Tec.

Balwinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ved Parkash Vs State of Haryana

M/S Pacific Educational Academy Vs Amit Kapoor

Babbi Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sunita Saini & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.