Crl.M.No. M- 14597 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No. M- 14597 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.5.2013 ... Hari Singh and others ................Petitioners vs. Baldev Singh .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate for the petitioners. ... K.C. Puri, J.
Prayer in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash the criminal complaint No. 378/1 dated 24.10.2011 titled as Baldev Singh vs. Hari Singh and others under Sections 499, 500, 120-B IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula and order dated 9.5.2011 (Annexure P-3) vide which the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for offence under Sections 500 read with 120 B IPC.
Petitioners have also challenged the order dated 16.1.2013, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, vide which the Crl.M.No. M- 14597 of 2013 -2- revision petition preferred by the petitioners against the summoning order Annexure P-3, has been dismissed.
Briefly stated, Baldev Singh working as Superintendent Grade II in District Court, Chandigarh, has filed complaint under Section 499, 500 and 120-B IPC, against the present petitioners with the allegation that father and uncles of the complainant have joint ancestral land in village Swajpur, District Patiala, alongwith accused Balkar Singh. The dispute is going on between the parties and FIR No. 598 dated 23.11.2009 under Sections 447, 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC was registered against Lal Singh, Balkar Singh, Hari Singh, Ranjit Singh and Narain Singh. The respondents in order to put pressure made defamatory allegation in a communication sent to Governor of Punjab, Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, DIG Patiala, SSP Patiala and Hon'ble Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein false allegations were levelled against the complainant to defame him. The allegations are as under:-
" Kirpal Singh da larka, Baldev Singh jo ki Chandigarh Additional Judge de Steno Typist hai ate criminal kism da bandaa hai joki Judge saheban a nam leke sanu dabde marda hai ate kanooni karbahi wich bigan panda hai, assin app ji nu vinti karde hai ke sanu jani ate mali nuksan hon da dar hai kyonki sade khet de raste wich inha da ghar hai ate sanu raste wich gher ke mar den da dar hai."
It is alleged that on account of said letter the prestige of the Crl.M.No. M- 14597 of 2013 -3- complainant has lowered in the eyes of the general public, friends, colleagues advocates, seniors etc. After appraisal of the pre-charge evidence, accused now petitioners were summoned. The said order was challenged by filing a revision and vide order dated 16.1.2003 Annexure P-5 the revision was also dismissed. Now, the order of summoning and order dismissing the revision, have been challenged by invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
It is settled law that provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only in case there is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court or the complaint is mala fide. Case of the petitioners does not fall within the parameter of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Both the Courts below, after going through the preliminary evidence, reached to the conclusion that case is made out for trial of the petitioners for offence under Section 500 and 120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners could not convince the Court that there is any fault in the concurrent finding returned by both the Courts below in respect of summoning of the petitioners as an accused.
The authority reported as Jit Singh vs. Baljit Kaur 1999 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406, relied upon by counsel for the petitioners is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, husband filed divorce petition against the wife levelling allegations of adultery. Divorce was granted. However, the allegations of adultery were found false. This Court held that it was obligatory on part of Crl.M.No. M- 14597 of 2013 -4- wife to make separate application before Matrimonial Court for prosecution of husband under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for filing complaint under Section 193 IPC.
Consequently, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.
( K.C. Puri ) 8.5.2013 Judge chugh