Allowed

Naginder Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Dec 2014CRM-M/16167/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeks quashing of an order dismissing his application to drop proceedings and a judgment dismissing his revision, arguing no offence against him was established. The court found merit and quashed both orders, dropping proceedings against petitioner.

What did the court decide?

quashed order dated 08.09.2010 and judgment dated 09.05.2012; dropped proceedings against petitioner

Naginder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

239

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM No.M-16167 of 2013 Date of Decision: December 11, 2014

Naginder Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vikram Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.A.S.Klar, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶12

Respondent No.2-in-person.

¶13

¶14

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶15

Petitioner Naginder Singh has filed this petition against State of Punjab and Darshan Ram @ Darshan Singh respondents under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 08.09.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala declining the application of the petitioner for dropping his name from the proceedings for the reason that he has been never summoned by learned trial Court in its order dated 03.09.2005 and also for quashing of judgment dated 09.05.2012 passed by learned Appellate Court vide which the revision filed by the petitioner against order dated VINEET GULATI08.09.2010 has been dismissed. 2014.12.24 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶16

CRM No.M-16167 of 2013

¶17

-2-

¶18

It is mainly stated in the petition that respondent filed a private complaint under Section 499 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 34 IPC against five persons on the basis that Chhinder Pal Singh along with other Panches of the Gram Panchayat have connived with each other to pass a resolution dated 10.12.2003 to help the petitioner in the Lambardari case and said resolution is unauthorized beyond the scope of functions and powers of the Gram Panchayat. It is also in the complaint that in the said resolution, a defamatory allegation has been levelled that the complainant is of a quarrelsome nature.

¶19

Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition. Respondent No.2 appeared in person, filed reply and contested the petition.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2-in-person as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record and also gone through the reply filed by respondent No.2.

¶21

From the record, I find that Darshan Ram @ Darshan Singh filed a criminal complaint against Surinderpal Singh alias Chhinder Pal Singh, Ramji Dass, Karamjit Kaur, Bhajan Singh and Naginder Singh (present petitioner) under Section 499 read with Section 120-B IPC and Section 34 IPC. The main allegation in the complaint is that Surinder Pal Singh, Ramjit Dass, Karamjit Kaur and Bhajan Singh (accused No.1 to 4) have passed Resolution No.5 dated 10.12.2003 on behalf of Gram Panchayat Khera Tanda Jaal in support

¶22

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.24 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

CRM No.M-16167 of 2013

¶24

-3-

¶25

of Naginder Singh accused. The perusal of the complaint itself shows that resolution, in which it is stated that Darshan Singh is a person of quarrelsome nature and non-cooperative to public, has been passed only by other accused. There is no allegation that this defamatory resolution has been passed or signed by present petitioner, which means that defamatory statement/resolution is made by accused No.1 to 4 and not by the present petitioner. Though this resolution may be stated to have been passed to favour the present petitioner but the present petitioner has not committed any offence of defamation as per the allegations of the complainant.

¶26

In the summoning order dated 03.09.2005, copy of which is Annexure P-2, in the heading, name of present petitioner has not been mentioned. Even in the order, while summoning other accused under Section 499/500 IPC, it is nowhere discussed that the present petitioner Naginder Singh has been summoned because as per resolution, he is beneficiary. The present petitioner has not been summoned under Section 120-B IPC and admittedly the resolution has not been passed by him. Even, in the summoning order, it is stated by learned SDJM, Samrala that it is prima facie proved on the record that accused No.1 to 4 had passed resolution No.5 dated 10.12.2003. Therefore, from the complaint as well as the summoning order, it is clear that present petitioner has not committed any offence of defamation. If at all, even if it is alleged that there is allegation under Section 120-B IPC against present petitioner but none of the accused has been summoned under Section 120-B IPC. Therefore,

¶27

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.24 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶28

CRM No.M-16167 of 2013

¶29

-4-

¶30

the order dated 08.09.2010 passed by learned JMIC, Samrala dismissing the application for dropping the proceedings against petitioner Naginder Singh and the judgment dated 09.05.2012 passed by learned Add. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dismissing the revision against the order dated 08.09.2010 are not as per law. The continuation of proceedings against present petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. No offence is made out against the present petitioner.

¶31

In view of the above, I find merit in the present petition and the same is allowed. The order dated 08.09.2010 passed by learned JMIC, Samrala and the judgment dated 09.05.2012 passed by learned Add. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana are hereby quashed and proceedings qua the present petitioner are hereby dropped.

¶32

December 11, 2014 Vgulati

¶33

(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE

¶34

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.24 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Naginder Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naginder Singh 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

Ranjit Singh Vs Bbmb & Ors.

Ranjit Kaur @ Jeeto Vs State of Punjab

Vinod Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Baljinder Singh and Ors. Vs Jagir Singh Saini

Priya Sharma Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Surinder Singh @ Shinda Vs State of Punjab and Ors.