Gurpreet Singh Kairon vs State Of Punjab And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 22080 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurpreet Singh Kairon vs State Of Punjab And Another on 16 December, 2023

CRM-M-59922-2023 -l-
2023:PHHC:162702

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH
117
CRM-M-59922-2023

Reserved on 08.12.2023

Pronounced on 16.12.2023
GURPREET SINGH KAIRON ...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN

Present:- | Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate and
Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab.
2 2h 2c 2c

ALOK JAIN, J.

1. The present petition has been filed inter alia praying for quashing of the complaint No. 782/2015 dated 14.10.2015, whereby, the summoning order has been passed against the petitioner to be summoned

under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the deceased-Swaraj Singh went missing on 01.04.2015 and his motorcycle was found on 02.04.2015. Subsequent thereto, on 03.04.2015, the mother of the deceased lodged a complaint only gua a missing person. However, after the body of the deceased was recovered from the canal, complainant-Gurmukh Singh, who is the brother of the deceased, lodged an FIR on 07.04.2015

making allegations against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the complainant had approached this Court for directions that the investigation

be conducted. According to the said investigation report and affirmation of MOHIT 2023.12.19 10:02 . . . . . oe | attest to the accurachd, it came out that there is no evidence available qua commission of

integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:162702

offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, since the respondent-complainant had approached the learned

Court below by filing a complaint, the matter was proceeded with.

4. He further submits that, in fact, a cancellation report in the said FIR was filed but only due to the fact that the complainant had also moved a petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, the same was negated and the

matter was now fixed for framing of charges on 11.12.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in fact, the complainant and his brother had a monetary dispute and the deceased was rather suffering from depression and was undergoing treatment from a Psychiatrist. He further submits that the actual reason for his death was suicide as the injuries on the body of the deceased were caused on account of his jumping into the water and the canal being broken, for which he relies

upon medical evidence.

6. Learned State counsel has filed the status report by way of affidavit of Gurlqbal Singh (PPS), Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana (South), on behalf of respondent-State and has submitted that the argument stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be looked into at this stage for the reason that the petitioner has already filed a discharge application before the learned trial Court, which is pending adjudication. He further submits that as per the summoning order, the evidence has been brought out by the complainant, according to which the FIR has been lodged, but could not deny the fact that the State had filed the cancellation report in the FIR case and is still pursuing the same.

7. Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in Court today, which is taken on record and has submitted that CW-3-Arun Kumar deposed qua the incident and one more independent witness-Jatinder Singh

MOHIT also deposed against the petitioner, coupled with the fact that the medical

2023.12.19 10:02 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

MOHIT 2023.12.19 10:02

2023:PHHC:162702

report is also against the petitioner.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal has submitted that the independent witness whose testimony was relied upon by the trial Court was planted later on and there is no justifiable reasons coming forth, in case, they became aware about the death of Swaraj Singh on 07.04.2015, what stopped them from coming forward and informing the authorities. Moreso, these two witnesses never came before the investigating authority or the SIT. He also controverts to Para 06 of the reply, according to

which the State is proceeding to file the cancellation report.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State at length.

10. What borne out is that an FIR was lodged on 07.04.2015 qua an

incident which occurred on 01.04.2015. Since the respondent-Authorities were not proceeding in accordance with law, respondent No.2 approached this Court by filing CRM-M-17602-2015, which was decided on 07.08.2018 and liberty was granted to respondent No.2 to approach the competent Court under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C. Subsequent thereto, respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 13.10.2015 during the pendency of the abovementioned petition.

11. In the meantime, the police authorities submitted a cancellation report on 23.03.2018 and the same is still pending in the FIR case. However, in the complaint case, the summoning order was issued on 02.11.2019 and the petitioner was granted the concession of anticipatory bail on 18.01.2020, only on the ground that the criminal liability of the petitioner would be assessed during the course of trial when the parties would lead evidence in support of their respective contentions.

12. It is now after almost 04 years when the charges are to be framed, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the

complaint and the summoning order. In the present case the petitioner is

| attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

MOHIT

2023.12.19 10:02

2023:PHHC:162702

trying to rely upon the medical report by stating it to be inconclusive. However, the same shall be subject to cross-examination and has not yet been tested as per the rigors of the Indian Evidence Act. No doubt presumption of innocence is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence which entails that every man is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but on the said principle, the proceedings cannot be cancelled when a cognizable offence has been reported and the Court has issued a summoning order after considering the preliminary evidence available before it.

13. There is testimony of independent witnesses and this Court does not wish to return any finding or opinion gua the same, which may be taken as any expression by this Court. It is a settled principle of law that the question of whether the material already in existence or to be collected during investigation would be sufficient for holding the concerned accused persons guilty or not has to be considered at the time of trial and the same cannot be inquired into under the proceedings of Section 482 Cr.P.C before a High Court. At the time of framing the charge it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing commission of an offence and the involvement of the charged persons. Charge can be framed, if there is sufficient material demonstrating a possibility about the commission of crime by the accused. The question of culpability is to be decided by the trial Court at the final stage by appreciating the entire evidence, both prosecution and defence, before it. Also, it is immaterial whether the case is based on

direct or circumstantial evidence.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgements has held that the High Courts have to exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C very cautiously and sparingly. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest

Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a decision in a case

| attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2023:PHHC:162702

where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude which cannot be seen in

their true perspective without sufficient material before it.

15. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage, but it would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the

complaint cannot be proceeded with.

16. In a proceeding instituted on a complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or the complaint itself is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case to find out whether the

same would end in conviction or acquittal.

17. The complaint/F.I.R. has to be read as a whole. If it appears on the consideration of the allegations in light of the statement made on oath by the complainant or as disclosed in the F.I.R. that the ingredients of the offence are present and there is no material to demonstrate that the complaint/F.I.R. is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in such cases there would be no justification for interference by the High Court.

MOHIT

2023.12.19 10:02

| attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

MOHIT 2023.12.19 10:02

2023:PHHC:162702

18. When an FIR is lodged at a police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence in a criminal proceeding and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the process which

is set in motion through an F.I.R or a complaint.

19. This Court finds support with regard to the above from the judgments given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Aravapally Venkanna 2009 (13) SCC 443 and R.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866). That being so, the interference at the very threshold with the F.I.R. is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances as held in R.P. Kapoor's case (supra) which is not the case in the present petition. Ultimately, the relevance and admissibility of the materials to fasten culpability on the accused persons is

a matter of trial.

20. Keeping in view the above factual matrix assessed in the light of the principles of law enunciated and the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I do not find any merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any expression of opinion in the present order is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition

and should not be construed by any of the parties before the trial Court.

(ALOK JAIN) December 16, 2023 JUDGE Mohit Bishnoi Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

| attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document