Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jasdeep Singh vs Harbhajan Singh @ Bhajan Singh on 6 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117154
CRM-M-44606-2019 and other connected cases -1-
201 (3 cases)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:- 06.09.2024
(1)
CRM-M-44606-2019
Jasdeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Harbhajan Singh @ Bhajan Singh ...Respondent
(2)
CRM-M-45626-2019
Jagtar Singh and Others ...Petitioners
Versus
Harbhajan Singh @ Bhajan Singh ...Respondent
(3)
CRM-M-2424-2020
Gurpal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Harbhajan Singh @ Bhajan Singh ...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present:- Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners in CRM-M-2424-2020 and
in CRM-M-45626-2019.
Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate with
Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-44606-2019.
Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 14:23:42 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117154
CRM-M-44606-2019 and other connected cases -2-
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
1. Petitioners Jasdeep Singh, Jagtar Singh, Harmandeep Singh
@Harman Singh, Harcharan Singh and Gurpal Singh have filed petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No. 21 dated
14.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) filed under Sections 324, 427, 447, 379, 188,
148, 149 of IPC, titled "Harbhajan Singh @ Bhajan Singh Versus Jagtar
Singh and Others" as well as summoning order dated 15.02.2019,
Annexure P-2 passed by the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga and all subsequent
proceedings arising out of the said complaint or to grant any other relief
which the Court may deem fit and proper in the given facts and
circumstances of case.
2. As per the facts of case, Harbhajan Singh @ Bhajan Singh filed
complaint before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nihal Singh Wala,
District Moga with the allegations that on 14.05.2014, at about 08:30 am,
he along with his brother Khem Singh had gone to fields to collect fodder.
They reached in their fields and saw that Jass Singh s/o Harcharan Singh
was plowing common watt of their field with his Ford tractor and accused
Jagtar Singh was standing near the common watt along with his licensed
revolver, whereas, Harman Singh, Harcharan Singh and Gurpal Singh were
standing there, armed with Dangs/Tokke. Complainant and his brother
Khem Singh stopped them from plowing common watt and on this Jagtar
Singh pointed his revolver towards them that they will not be permitted to
enter the fields. Complainant and his brother again requested them not to
plow the common watt and on this all accused in connivance with each
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117154
CRM-M-44606-2019 and other connected cases -3-
other inflicted injuries to complainant with their respective weapons. Khem
Singh brother of complainant raised alarm for help and some persons from
adjoining grain market saved them from the hands of accused. Accused
persons broke the gate of tubewell motor constructed in their fields. They
damaged submersible bore and took away five bags of Urea lying in the
said tubewell motor room, spades and iron gate installed at the door of said
room, in their Bolero car bearing No. PB-29-J-0810 and committed theft. It
is further alleged that complainant had deposited his rifle in police post
Lopo due to Parliamentary Elections, 2014, whereas, Jagtar Singh defied
the election code of conduct by not depositing his revolver with the arms
dealer or at police post Lopo or at any other police station. It is further
alleged that matter was reported to police post Badhni Kalan. Instead of
taking action against the accused, police registered FIR No. 49 dated
14.05.2014 under Section 323, 341, 427, 148, 149 of IPC against
complainant. Complainant filed application to SSP, Moga for holding
inquiry and then police registered DDR dated 17.11.2014 against accused
with assurance that they will take action. However, police did not take any
action against accused and ultimately, complaint (Annexure P-1) was filed.
After recording of pre-summoning evidence, summoning order dated
15.02.2019 is passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nihal Singh
Wala, which is Annexure P-2.
3. Feeling aggrieved of said complaint and summoning order, all
accused have filed separate petitions as referred above.
4. Learned counsel(s) for petitioners argued that complaint filed by
complainant is hit by Section 468 of Cr.P.C. as the alleged occurrence took
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117154
CRM-M-44606-2019 and other connected cases -4-
place on 14.05.2014, whereas complaint was filed on 14.10.2016.
Therefore, complaint filed by complainant is barred by limitation. From the
facts narrated by complainant, no prima facie case is made out. Allegations
are general in nature. No specific role is attributed to petitioners. Impugned
order passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate is cryptic, without
appreciating the facts and evidence led before the Court. In-fact, FIR No.
49 dated 14.05.2014 under Section 323, 341, 427, 148, 149 of IPC was
registered against complainant at Police Station Badhni Kalan. Learned
counsel for petitioners has referred to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in 1998 AIR (SC) 128, case titled "M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd.
Versus Special Judicial Magistrate". Relevant para No. 26 runs as
under :-
"26. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter.
Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not
that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his
allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The
order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has
applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.
He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and
the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and that
would be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge
home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at
the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the
accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on
record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his
witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations
or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by
all or any of the accused."
Therefore, impugned complaint and summoning order dated
15.02.2019 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nihal Singh
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117154
CRM-M-44606-2019 and other connected cases -5-
Wala are liable to be quashed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent
pointed out that after the alleged occurrence, matter was reported to police
but no action was taken. After much pursuance, police recorded DDR dated
17.11.2014 and in that DDR, no action was taken which ultimately
compelled complainant to file complaint before Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate. Therefore, delay in filing complaint is well explained. In
support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent has relied upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2014 1 RCR(Cri)
590, case titled "Mrs. Sarah Mathew Versus The Institute of Cardio
Vascular Diseases by its Director - Dr. K.M. Cherian & Ors." with
connected cases. Relevant para No. 21 runs as under :-
"21. Gist of these provisions could now be stated. Section 467 defines
the phrase 'period of limitation' to mean the period specified in Section
468 for taking cognizance of certain offences. Section 468 stipulates the
bar of limitation. Sub-section (1) of Section 468 makes it clear that a
fetter is put on the court's power to take cognizance of an offence of the
category mentioned in sub-section (2) after the expiry of period of
limitation. Sub-section (2) lays down the period of limitation for certain
offences. Section 469 states when the period of limitation commences. It
is dexterously drafted so as to prevent advantage of bar of limitation
being taken by the accused. It states that period of limitation in relation
to an offence shall commence either from the date of offence or from the
date when the offence is detected. Section 470 provides for exclusion of
time in certain cases. It inter alia states that while computing the period
of limitation in relation to an offence, time taken during which the case
was being diligently prosecuted in another court or in appeal or in
revision against the offender, should be excluded. The explanation to this
section states that in computing limitation, the time required for
obtaining the consent or sanction of the Government or any other
authority should be excluded. Similarly time during which the accused is
absconding or is absent from India shall also be excluded. Section 471
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117154
CRM-M-44606-2019 and other connected cases -6-
provides for exclusion of date on which court is closed and Section 472
provides for continuing offence. Section 473 is an overriding provision
which enables courts to condone delay where such delay has been
properly explained or where the interest of justice demands extension of
period of limitation. Analysis of these provisions indicates that Chapter
XXXVI is a Code by itself so far as limitation is concerned. All the
provisions of this Chapter will have to be read cumulatively. Sections
468 and 469 will have to be read with Section 473."
There are specific allegations against all petitioners/accused.
Convincing evidence was led in complaint case and after appreciating pre-
summoning evidence, all petitioners/accused were ordered to be summoned
vide summoning order dated 15.02.2019, Annexure P-2. Learned Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nihal Singh Wala has not committed any
illegality or error while summoning present petitioners/accused. Therefore,
petition(s) filed by all the petitioners/accused deserve dismissal.
6. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the
record. Learned counsel(s) representing petitioners firstly raised the issue
that there is delay in filing complaint and it is hit by Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
Therefore, Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nihal Singh Wala was not
competent to take cognizance after the lapse of period of limitation. As per
the contents of complaint, it is filed on 14.10.2016 under Section 324, 427,
447, 379, 188, 148, 149 of IPC. Considering the nature of offence and
sentence provided thereunder, learned counsel(s) for petitioners has failed
to explain as to how complaint was barred by limitation. Alleged
occurrence took place on 14.05.2014 and complaint is filed on 14.10.2016.
In para No. 4 of complaint, complainant categorically alleged that matter
was reported to police for taking action against accused and ultimately,
police registered DDR dated 17.11.2014, but no concrete action was taken
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117154
CRM-M-44606-2019 and other connected cases -7-
against accused named by complainant, compelled him to file present
complaint. Therefore, in the light of judgment cited in 2014 1 RCR(Cri)
590 (supra) arguments advanced by learned counsel(s) for petitioners on
this point that complaint is barred by limitation does not hold any ground.
7. Learned counsel(s) representing petitioners has also challenged
complaint as well as summoning order dated 15.02.2019, Annexures P-1
and P-2 respectively. I have considered the allegations detailed in
complaint and have also considered the summoning order. As per
summoning order, complainant had examined Khem Singh, eye witness as
CW-2, Dr. Saurav Jain as CW-3, Constable Sukhvir Singh as CW-4 and
apart from this, complainant also stepped into witness box as CW-1.
Therefore, apart from the statement of complainant regarding the said
occurrence, he is supported by one eye witness Khem Singh CW-2. Doctor
was also examined to prove the injuries suffered by complainant. All
petitioners/accused are specifically named and specific role is attributed to
them at the time of commission of alleged offence. At the stage of
summoning, only prima facie case is to be seen. Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Nihal Singh Wala while passing impugned summoning order
dated 15.02.2019 relied upon pre-summoning evidence and came to
conclusion that prima facie case was made out against all
petitioners/accused under Section 324, 427, 447, 379, 188, 148, 149 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
8. In the light of this, I do not find merits in the arguments
advanced by learned counsel(s) for aforesaid petitioners. There is no
convincing ground for quashing complaint, Annexure P-1, as well as
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117154
CRM-M-44606-2019 and other connected cases -8-
summoning order dated 15.02.2019, Annexure P-2. Consequently,
aforesaid petition(s) filed by petitioner(s) are accordingly dismissed.
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly as well.
06.09.2024 (AMARJOT BHATTI)
lalit JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
