Dismissed

Jaspal Singh v. Chaman Lal & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Feb 2017CRM-A/1466/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal against order dismissing a complaint. Court held that in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on police report, discharge after evidence precludes framing of charges but does not constitute acquittal. Consequently, appeal against non-framing of charges is not maintainable, and leave to appeal is refused.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jaspal Singh Vs Chaman Lal & Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.A-1466-MA of 2014

¶3

Date of decision:13.2.2017

Jaspal Singh

...Applicant

Chaman Lal and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶10

.....

¶11

Present: Mr. Mandeep K. Sajjan, Advocate for the applicant.

¶12

Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶13

Mr. K.C. Singla, Advocate for respondents No.5 and 6.

¶14

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶15

The complainant/applicant has filed this criminal miscellaneous application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against Chaman Lal and othersrespondents seeking grant of leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment dated 13.6.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, vide which the complaint filed under Sections 341, 355, 499, 500, 347, 386 and 506 IPC and under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 read with Section 34 IPC and Arms Act has been dismissed and the accused have been discharged.

¶16

It is mainly stated in the application that the applicant/appellant

¶17

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.03.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

Cr. Misc. No.A-1466-MA of 2014 [2]

¶19

is filing the accompanying appeal in this Court and the same is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It has been stated that there is sufficient evidence and material on record available against the respondents, on the basis of which, the respondents are liable to be convicted. It has been prayed that this application be allowed and the applicant be permitted to file the appeal.

¶20

Notice of motion has been issued in this case.

¶21

Mr. Jitender Dhanda, learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and Mr. K.C. Singla, learned Advocate has appeared for respondents No.5 and 6 and contested this application.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

¶23

From the record, I find that Jaspal Singh-complainant filed the complaint against Chaman Lal and others for the offences under Sections 341, 355, 499, 500, 347, 386 and 506 IPC and under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 read with Section 34 IPC and Arms Act. The brief facts of the complaint as mentioned in the judgment dated 13.6.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, are as under:-

¶24

“Briefly, the complainant's version is that complainant is Schedule Caste by birth and Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh has issued Schedule Caste Certificate bearing Reference No.WBN/THE/KGO/ROR/82/198 dated 02.07.1982 to the complainant. The complainant is Editor of Hindi Weekly

¶25

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.03.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶26

Cr. Misc. No.A-1466-MA of 2014 [3]

¶27

Newspaper namely Jagrukta from the year 1991 onwards. The accused are not members of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes and believe in untouchability. The accused belong to the upper castes of the society. Against the unlawful activities of accused No.7 and 8 and other persons, the complainant filed a complaint U/s 499, 500 IPC, which is pending in the Court of learned JMIC, Chandigarh. The accused No.7 and 8 were summoned by the said Court vide summoning order dated 17.02.2003. The summons of said complaint case were served upon the accused No.7 and 8 on 25.03.2003. In counter blast the accused No.1 to 4 and 7 under instigation of accused No.5, 6 and 8 gheraoed the complainant on 25.03.2003 near Mata Mansa Devi Chowk, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra, Chandigarh at about 06.00 PM. Accused No.1 to 4 and 7 gheraoed the complainant with mutual consent of the other accused of this complaint. Accused No.4 threatened the complainant by putting his revolver upon the head of the complainant and said that they have been deputed by other accused of this complaint to teach a lesson to the complainant. Accused No.1 with mutual consent of other accused started defaming the complainant publicly by saying “Re Neech Chamar Vaise to hamne tere khilaf kafi saboot ghar liye hain Lekin aaj Pt. Sudarshan Ji ke Aadesh par tujhe chetavani dete hain, Sharma aur Jain ke khilaf apna case wapis le le nahin to tere privar ke

¶28

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.03.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶29

Cr. Misc. No.A-1466-MA of 2014

¶30

[4]

¶31

liye dulina kaand ho jayega”. Number of persons had gathered at the spot. One Mr. Manoj Kumar of Manimajra, Chandigarh requested the accused No.1 to not insult the complainant in this manner but the accused openly stated that they are non SC/ST and the complainant is SC. Why the complainant who is SC has obtained summons against the accused No.7 and 8 from the Court. Accused No.1 to 4 and 7 further shouted with common intention to defame the complainant publically (sic. - publicly) by saying “Yeh Choora Hai” and further stated “Hum Ise Iske Ghar se Bejti Karke nikal denge”. In the meanwhile one Mr. Khoob Chand Bharti also intervened in the matter to rescue the complainant from the clutches of these persons but the accused were inimical towards the complainant and claimed that they will leave the complainant only if the complainant withdrew his case against accused No.7 and 8 otherwise they will kill the complainant. Accused No.1 to 4 and 7 when mutual consent of other accused wrongly obstructed the way of complainant so as to prevent the complainant from proceeding in any direction to escape from the humiliation and wrongfully restrained the complainant for about 15-20 minutes at the spot. Against the above said acts of the accused, the complainant moved a complaint dated 25.03.2003 to the police and delivered its copy to SSP, Chandigarh vide diary No.1416 dated 27.03.2003. Nothing was done by the police. Thereafter complainant wrote

¶32

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.03.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶33

Cr. Misc. No.A-1466-MA of 2014 [5]

¶34

a complaint to National Commission for SC and ST, Sector 9- A, Chandigarh. The complainant received a letter dated 24.02.2004 from the said Commission alongwith reply dated 13.02.2004 from the SSP, Chandjgarh in which it was admitted by the SSP, Chandigarh that a quarrel has taken place between the complainant, accused No.1 and two brothers of the accused No.1 on 25.03.2003 at 06:30 PM. Wrong reason of the dispute was given. It was denied that revolver was put on the head of the complainant by accused No.4 and derogatory remarks were used. It was wrongly stated by the SSP, Chandigarh that no offence was made out and no further action was called for by the local police. In the meantime, witnesses S. Gurdeep Singh and Manoj Sharma informed the complainant that the accused were pressurizing and threatening them to back out from factual position. These persons also moved their complaints to SHO, PS-Manimajra, Chandigarh and to the said Commission but nothing was done by the police. The complainant further requested the Commission to take further action vide letter dated. 02.03.2004. In the meantime witness Manoj Kumar also started receiving threats from the accused and he moved letter to SSP, Chandigarh. Vide letter dated 12.08.2004 the Commission further forwarded the reply dated 05.08.2004 given by SSP, Chandigarh to the Commission on the complaint of complainant. In this report it was claimed by SSP,

¶35

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.03.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶36

Cr. Misc. No.A-1466-MA of 2014 [6]

¶37

Chandigarh that Mr. Manoj Kumar and Gurdeep Singh had earlier supported the version of the complainant but now they have changed their version and were not supporting the complainant. It was wrongly averred by SSP, Chandigarh in the reply dated 05.08.2004 that complainant had obtained signatures of Mr. Manoj Kumar and Gurdeep Singh on blank affidavit. The report was not correct, so no case was made out and the matter was filed. Accused have committed the offences U/s 341, 355, 499, 500 , 506, 347 and 386 IPC and U/s 3 of the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989 read with Section 34 of IPC & Arms Act. Hence, the present complaint.”

¶38

As per the impugned order, the accused were summoned under Sections 341, 355, 499, 500 and 506 IPC vide order dated 21.11.2007. Then the Court fixed the case for pre-charge evidence and evidence was produced. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence found no prima case and the accused were discharged and charges had not been framed.

¶39

As per the allegations, the accused put the pistol on the head of the complainant etc. and gave the threatening to kill them but the accused were summoned under Section 506 IPC and this offence is punishable for maximum sentence of seven years, which means that it is a warrant trial case. As the charges have not been framed in warrant trial case, therefore, it does not amount to acquittal of the accused. Rather, the accused have been discharged and charges have not been framed. The procedure was also

¶40

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.03.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶41

Cr. Misc. No.A-1466-MA of 2014

¶42

[7]

¶43

adopted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh in this complaint case which applies to trial of warrant case instituted other than on Police report.

¶44

Therefore, in view of the above discussion, as the impugned order does not amount to acquittal of the accused, therefore, the appeal against acquittal is not maintainable. When the appeal against the acquittal is not maintainable, there is no ground for grant of leave to appeal to the applicant.

¶45

Therefore, the same is dismissed. However, the applicant is at

¶46

liberty to avail whatever remedy available to him.

¶47

February 13, 2017. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶48

Harpal Singh Parmar 2017.03.20 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Jaspal Singh v. Chaman Lal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jaspal Singh v. Chaman Lal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balkar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Shifali Jindal Alias Shelly Vs State of Punjab

Niranjan Nangia Vs M/S Shanti Garments

Yash Pal Vs Ashok Kapoor

Parveen Garg Vs Ajay

Pritpal Singh Vs Gurnam Singh