Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahinder Singh @ Sukhbir Singh And ... vs State Of Haryana And Another on 9 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048593
2024:PHHC:048593
CRM-M-34029-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-34029-2022
Date of Decision: 09.04.2024
MAHINDER SINGH @ SUKHBIR SINGH & OTHERS
... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Tanvir S. Grewal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajiv Goel, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Amarjit Benewal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
for quashing of the Complaint No.COMI/110 dated 27.07.2018 (Annexure P-
1) District Kurukshetra registered under Sections 323, 324, 500, 506 and 34
IPC, 1860 titled as 'Shamshad Ali Versus Prem Singh & others', the
summoning order dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 323, 324
and 506 IPC, 1860 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.72 dated
29.06.2015 under Sections 323 and 325 IPC was registered at Police Station
Jhansa, District Kurukshetra against respondent No.2-Shamshad Ali, his
father Nawab Ali and brother Sahil alias Shelly on the basis of the statement
of petitioner No.1-Mahinder Singh @ Sukhbir Singh. The said FIR is
attached as Annexure P-3 to the petition.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048593
2024:PHHC:048593
3. Regarding the same occurrence, as a cross-version, complaint
No.COMI/688/2015 was instituted by Nawab Ali, father of respondent No.2
on 07.12.2015, nearly six months after the alleged occurrence. The copy of
the said complaint is attached as Annexure P-4 to the petition.
4. The aforementioned complaint (Annexure P-4) came to be
dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2018 (Annexure P-5).
5. After the dismissal of the first complaint, respondent No.2-
Shamshad Ali instituted the second instant complaint bearing Complaint
No.COMI/110 dated 27.07.2018 with identical allegations as levelled in the
first complaint and without disclosing the factum of the filing and the
dismissal of the first complaint. The only change in the subsequent complaint
was that respondent No.2-Shamshad Ali stated that he had filed a complaint
with the Investigating Agency regarding the same occurrence but the same
had not been looked into. The copy of the second complaint dated
27.07.2018 is attached as Annexure P-1 to the petition.
6. Meawhile, in the Trial emanating out of FIR No.72 dated
26.09.2015, respondent No.2-Shamshad Ali and his father Nawab Ali were
convicted for one year U/s 323 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC vide
judgment and order dated 12.11.2018 and 14.11.2018 (Annexure P-6).
7. The respondent No.2 and his father Nawab Ali filed an appeal
against the said conviction whereas petitioner No.1 (complainant in the said
FIR) filed an appeal for enhancement of sentence. Both the said appeals are
pending adjudication before the Court concerned.
8. Meanwhile, on the basis of the second complaint dated
27.07.2018 (Annexure P-1), the impugned summoning order came to be
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048593
2024:PHHC:048593
passed on 15.03.2022 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 323, 324 and 506 IPC,
1860.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trial
Court completely failed to appreciate the fact that an initial complaint
regarding the same occurrence with the identical averments had already been
dismissed by the Court vide order dated 23.07.2018 (Annexure P-5). The
only difference in the subsequent complaint was that the same had been filed
by respondent No.2-Shamshad Ali son of Nawab Ali who was the
complainant in the first complaint. However, in order to create a false cause
of action an undated representation to the SHO, P.S. Jhansa, District
Kurukshetra was annexed with the second complaint. The said representation
did not find mention in the initial complaint moved by Nawab Ali. Further,
the fact that an earlier complaint had been filed which had been dismissed
had not been disclosed by the complainant when he instituted the second
complaint. Therefore, the complainant had misused the process of law by
instituting the second complaint four days after the dismissal of the first
complaint. He, therefore, prays that the instant complaint and consequential
summoning order were liable to be quashed.
10. On the other hand, the learned State counsel along with the
counsel for the complainant while not disputing the factual position states
that as the Trial Court had applied its mind and summoned the accused, this
Court ought not to interfere with the impugned summoning order and
therefore, the present petition was liable to be dismissed.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048593
2024:PHHC:048593
12. Admittedly, the first complaint filed by Nawab Ali father of
respondent No.2-Shamshad Ali came to be instituted on 07.12.2015 and
came to be dismissed on 23.07.2018. Without disclosing the said fact, the
instant second complaint came to be filed by respondent No.2 on 27.07.2018
which is a verbatim copy of the earlier complaint. On the basis of the second
complaint, the impugned order and summoning order came to be passed.
There cannot be a greater misuse of the law when a complainant institutes a
subsequent complaint without disclosing that the earlier complaint on
identical facts but at the instance of a different complainant already stands
dismissed. In fact, the Summoning Court ought to have been vigilant while
passing the impugned order especially in light of the fact that an undated
representation (Annexure P-9) had been brought on record by the
complainant/respondent No.2 to show that a complaint had been made to the
Investigating Agency on which no action had been taken.
13. In view of the above, I find considerable merit in the present
petition. Therefore, the Complaint No.COMI/110 dated 27.07.2018
(Annexure P-1) District Kurukshetra registered under Sections 323, 324, 500,
506 and 34 IPC, 1860, the summoning order dated 15.03.2022 (Annexure P-
2) under Sections 323, 324 and 506 IPC, 1860 and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
09.04.2024
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
