Major Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1153577
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJun-30-2014
AppellantMajor Singh
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
crl.m.no.m-27630 of 2010 (o&m) -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh. crl.m.no.m-27630 of 2010 (o&m) date of decision: june 30, 2014 major singh .....petitioner v. state of haryana and others ......respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice naresh kumar sanghi present: mr.manoj bajaj, advocate for the petitioner. mr.satyavir singh yadav, addl.a.g., haryana. mr.manjeet singh, advocate for respondents no.4 and 5....naresh kumar sanghi, j. challenge in this petition, filed under section 482, cr.p.c., is to the summoning order dated 20.05.2010 (annexure p9).passed by learned judicial magistrate ist class, panchkula, and further prayer is for quashing of the complaint (kalandra).annexure p7, filed by state of haryana through station house officer, police station, sector 14, panchkula, (respondent no.3).learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:- “(i) from the averments in the complaint (kalandra) and the accompanying documents, the ingredients of section 182, ipc, are not attracted and, as such, the learned area judicial magistrate had wrongly summoned the petitioner meenu 2014.07.02 16:54 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crl.m.no.m-27630 of 2010 (o&m) -2- vide annexure p9. (ii) the complaint was presented before the superintendent of police, panchkula, (respondent no.2).therefore, inspector aman kumar, the station house officer of police station, sector 14, panchkula (respondent no.3) was not competent to file the complaint (kalandra) against the petitioner for his prosecution under section 182, ipc. learned counsel for the state assisted by learned counsel for respondents no.4 and 5 submitted that complaint, annexure p5, was presented before the inspector aman kumar, the station house officer of police station, sector 14, panchkula, (respondent no.3) in addition to a copy addressed to superintendent of police, panchkula (respondent no.2).therefore, inspector aman kumar (respondent no.3) was competent to file the complaint (kalandra) annexure p7. to elaborate their submissions, it was contended that if a complaint is addressed to various authorities simultaneously in that eventuality every such officer is competent to file the complaint (kalandra) before the court of competent jurisdiction after finding the contents of the complaint to be false. it was also submitted that from the averments in the complaint, (kalandra) annexure p7, and the accompanying documents, it is very much clear that the petitioner presented the false complaint, annexure p5, before the competent authorities and, as such, no good ground is made out to quash the complaint (kalandra) annexure p7, and the summoning order annexure p9. they further submitted that in meenu 2014.07.02 16:54 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crl.m.no.m-27630 of 2010 (o&m) -3- para no.4(vi) of his petition, the petitioner major singh has mentioned as under:- “that the petitioner, after obtaining the relevant statements and information under right to information act, filed a complaint with the respondents no.2 and 3 for taking action against respondent no.4, which apparently reflected the commission of offence of cheating, forgery and misappropriation of government funds. a copy of the complaint dated 11.01.2001 is annexure p5.”. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record. so far as filing of the complaint, annexure p5, before respondent no.3 is concerned, it is the averment in para no.4(vi) of the petition itself that the same was presented not only before the superintendent of police, panchkula, but before respondent no.3, inspector aman kumar, the station house officer of police station, sector 14, panchkula, also and, as such, it is held that respondent no.3, the station house officer, was competent to file the complaint (kalandra) annexure p7. so far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that from the complaint and the documents available on record no offence under section 182, ipc, is made out is meenu 2014.07.02 16:54 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crl.m.no.m-27630 of 2010 (o&m) -4- concerned, the same is based on disputed question of facts and has to be decided by the learned trial court. to elaborate his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the relevant date, respondent no.4 was on leave and, as such, the averments of the complaint, annexure p5, presented before the authorities were based on facts. however, the said contentions have been disputed not only by the learned counsel for the state but the learned counsel representing respondents no.4 and 5 also. it is a settled law that disputed questions of facts cannot be decided by the high court in a petition under section 482, cr.p.c.the disputed questions of facts of the case are to be decided by the learned trial court after taking evidence of both the sides. in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition sans merit and the same is hereby dismissed. june 30, 2014 (naresh kumar sanghi) meenu judge meenu 2014.07.02 16:54 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

Crl.M.No.M-27630 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.M.No.M-27630 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: June 30, 2014 Major Singh .....Petitioner v.

State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

Mr.Manjeet Singh, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5....NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

Challenge in this petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is to the summoning order dated 20.05.2010 (Annexure P9).passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, and further prayer is for quashing of the complaint (Kalandra).Annexure P7, filed by State of Haryana through Station House Officer, Police Station, Sector 14, Panchkula, (respondent No.3).Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:- “(i) From the averments in the complaint (Kalandra) and the accompanying documents, the ingredients of Section 182, IPC, are not attracted and, as such, the learned Area Judicial Magistrate had wrongly summoned the petitioner Meenu 2014.07.02 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.M.No.M-27630 of 2010 (O&M) -2- vide Annexure P9.

(ii) the complaint was presented before the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula, (respondent No.2).therefore, Inspector Aman Kumar, the Station House Officer of Police Station, Sector 14, Panchkula (respondent No.3) was not competent to file the complaint (Kalandra) against the petitioner for his prosecution under Section 182, IPC.

Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 submitted that complaint, Annexure P5, was presented before the Inspector Aman Kumar, the Station House Officer of Police Station, Sector 14, Panchkula, (respondent No.3) in addition to a copy addressed to Superintendent of Police, Panchkula (respondent No.2).therefore, Inspector Aman Kumar (respondent No.3) was competent to file the complaint (Kalandra) Annexure P7.

To elaborate their submissions, it was contended that if a complaint is addressed to various authorities simultaneously in that eventuality every such officer is competent to file the complaint (Kalandra) before the Court of competent jurisdiction after finding the contents of the complaint to be false.

It was also submitted that from the averments in the complaint, (Kalandra) Annexure P7, and the accompanying documents, it is very much clear that the petitioner presented the false complaint, Annexure P5, before the competent authorities and, as such, no good ground is made out to quash the complaint (Kalandra) Annexure P7, and the summoning order Annexure P9.

They further submitted that in Meenu 2014.07.02 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.M.No.M-27630 of 2010 (O&M) -3- para No.4(vi) of his petition, the petitioner Major Singh has mentioned as under:- “That the petitioner, after obtaining the relevant statements and information under Right to Information Act, filed a complaint with the respondents No.2 and 3 for taking action against respondent No.4, which apparently reflected the commission of offence of cheating, forgery and misappropriation of Government funds.

A copy of the complaint dated 11.01.2001 is Annexure P5.”

.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

So far as filing of the complaint, Annexure P5, before respondent No.3 is concerned, it is the averment in para No.4(vi) of the petition itself that the same was presented not only before the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula, but before respondent No.3, Inspector Aman Kumar, the Station House Officer of Police Station, Sector 14, Panchkula, also and, as such, it is held that respondent No.3, the Station House Officer, was competent to file the complaint (Kalandra) Annexure P7.

So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that from the complaint and the documents available on record no offence under Section 182, IPC, is made out is Meenu 2014.07.02 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.M.No.M-27630 of 2010 (O&M) -4- concerned, the same is based on disputed question of facts and has to be decided by the learned trial Court.

To elaborate his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the relevant date, respondent No.4 was on leave and, as such, the averments of the complaint, Annexure P5, presented before the authorities were based on facts.

However, the said contentions have been disputed not only by the learned counsel for the State but the learned counsel representing respondents No.4 and 5 also.

It is a settled law that disputed questions of facts cannot be decided by the High Court in a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C.The disputed questions of facts of the case are to be decided by the learned trial Court after taking evidence of both the sides.

In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition sans merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

June 30, 2014 (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) meenu JUDGE Meenu 2014.07.02 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh