Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 25 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155284
CRM M-18550 of 2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
201 CRM M-18550 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 25.11.2024
Gurcharan Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT
Present : Mr. Tarunveer Vashisht, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
N.S.SHEKHAWAT, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the criminal complaint
bearing No. 32 dated 30.03.2013 under Sections 323, 506 and 34 IPC
and Section 3(x)(ii)(viii) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the
SC and ST Act’) Police Station Patran, District Patiala (Annexure
P-1), summoning order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P-2) and all
other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The complaint in the present case was instituted by
respondent No. 2/complainant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Samana by alleging that he was a resident of village Khang
1 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 30-11-2024 12:11:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155284
CRM M-18550 of 2014 (O&M) -2-
Tehsil Patran, District Patiala and belonged to Majbhi caste. He was
working as a farm labourer with the Balbir Singh. The land of Balbir
Singh is adjacent to village Khang of the complainant. In the morning
of 17.07.2012, when the respondent No.2/complainant was working
in the village of Balbir Singh, Gurcharan Singh, petitioner No. 1, who
was the owner of land adjacent to the land of Balbir Singh, came there
and threatened the respondent No. 2. The petitioner No. 1 threatened
him and asked him not to work there, otherwise, he shall be done to
death. On 19.07.2012, when the complainant was working in the
fields of Balbir Singh, all the petitioners came there and were carrying
sticks in their hands and said to respondent No. 2 “Kutiya-Chuhria,
why are you cultivating the land of Balbir Singh, we have enmity
with him. Chuhria, we had earlier prohibited you”. Thereafter, all the
petitioners had beaten him up and he suffered injuries and was treated
at Civil Hospital, Patran. After the said incident, the
petitioners/accused colluded with the local police and got one FIR
No. 165 dated 20.07.2012 under Sections 324, 326, 341 and 506 of
IPC Police Station Patran registered against respondent No. 2 and
others. The respondent No. 2 remained in jail from 15.09.2012 to
28.01.2013 in the said case. Even in jail, Sukhwinder Singh,
petitioner No. 2 had used caste related abuses against him. The
respondent No. 2 was released from jail on 28.01.2013. On
29.01.2013 at about 7/7.30 a.m., when he was going to answer the call
of nature, all the accused surrounded him and at that time Ginder Ram
2 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 30-11-2024 12:11:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155284
CRM M-18550 of 2014 (O&M) -3-
and Kala Singh were passing from there and on seeing the respondent
No. 2 surrounded by the accused, they stopped there. In their
presence, the accused stated that “Salia Chuhria that earlier you might
have been saved from our hands, now we will not leave you and after
suffering injuries, we will get registered one more case against you
and again will sent you to jail”. After saying this, all the accused ran
away as many persons had gathered at the spot. It was alleged that
respondent No. 2 had submitted an application on 29.01.2013 to
Station House Officer, Patran and two other senior police officers but
no action was taken. On 04.03.2013, the respondent No. 2 appeared
before the SSP Patiala and he was requested to take action. Thereafter,
on 17.03.2013, the officials of the Police Station Patran recorded the
statement of respondent No. 2 but no action was taken. Ultimately, he
filed a complaint under Sections 323, 506 and 34 IPC and Section
3(x)(ii)(viii) of the SC and ST Act.
3. In the preliminary evidence, CW1 Dr. Prasun Kumar
Chaudhary who deposed that on 20.07.2012 he medico legally
examined the complainant and tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A. He
proved on record the MLR Ex. CW1/B, pictorial diagram Ex. CW1/C,
police request Ex. CW1/D and bed head ticket of complainant Ex.
CW1/E. CW2 HC Bhola Singh, tendered on record copy of FIR
registered against the complainant CW2/1. CW3 Satpal Ram, resident
village Khang stated that accused persons used abusive language
against the complainant, attacked the complainant and caused injuries
3 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 30-11-2024 12:11:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155284
CRM M-18550 of 2014 (O&M) -4-
to him in his presence. CW4 Billu Ram, resident of village Khang,
also deposed that occurrence took place in his presence. CW5 HC
Jagat Ram brought on record order of SSP, Patiala Ex. CW5/A,
complaint of the complainant Ex. CW5/B and Ex. CW5/D and letter
of the complainant Ex. CW5/C. CW6 Vaisakhi Ram complainant
reiterated the averments made in complaint and produced his caste
certificate Ex. CW6/A.
4. After considering the evidence, vide the impugned order
dated 18.03.2014, the petitioners were summoned for the offences
under Sections 323 and 34 IPC and Section 3(x)(ii)(viii) of the SC
and ST Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the
occurrence in the present case had taken place on 17.07.2012. In the
said occurrence, the respondent No. 2 and his accomplices had
attacked the petitioners and caused serious injuries to them. As a
consequence, FIR No. 165 dated 20.07.2012 under Sections 324, 326,
341 and 506 of IPC Police Station Patran was registered against the
respondent No. 2 and his accomplices. Thereafter, the respondent
No. 2 and other accused were prosecuted by the Court of Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Samana and vide the judgment dated 31.08.2017,
the respondent No. 2 and his co-accused were convicted for the
offence punishable under Sections 326, 324, 341, 506 and 34 IPC and
were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02
years. He further contended that after the occurrence, the respondent
4 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 30-11-2024 12:11:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155284
CRM M-18550 of 2014 (O&M) -5-
No. 2 moved the first complaint to the police on 29.01.2013, i.e., after
about 06 months of the occurrence and the present complaint was
filed on 30.03.2013, i.e., after 08 months of the FIR, as a counter blast
to the FIR registered against them. Learned counsel further contended
that even during the pendency of the trial, the respondent No. 2 never
moved any application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. and now, the trial
arising out of the FIR No. 165/2012 has resulted into conviction of
respondent No. 2, it would be inappropriate to order the prosecution
of the petitioners. Learned counsel further contended that even the
matter was inquired into by the police and it was found during inquiry
(Annexure P-4) that the allegations levelled by the respondent No. 2
were false and motivated. He had levelled the allegations against the
petitioners at the instigation of Balbir Singh, in whose fields he was
working as a farm labourer. Apart from that, even no offence under
Section 3(x)(ii)(viii) of the SC and ST Act is made out against the
present petitioners as no such occurrence had taken place. Still
further, the utterances were not made at a public place and there is no
allegation in the complaint that the petitioners had the knowledge that
the complainant belonged to schedule caste and all the proceedings
are liable to be quashed by this Court.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent No. 2 vehemently argued that the occurrence is
admitted by the petitioners’ side and during the course of preliminary
evidence, sufficient evidence was led by respondent No. 2 to prove
5 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 30-11-2024 12:11:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155284
CRM M-18550 of 2014 (O&M) -6-
the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime. Even,
respondent No. 2 had examined CW1 Dr. Prasun Kumar Chaudhary,
who had produced the MLR, pictorial diagram and the bed head ticket
of the respondent No. 2. Still further, the properties of the petitioners
and Balbir Singh were adjacent to each other and the petitioners were
well aware of the case of the respondent No. 2. Even, when the
respondent No. 2 did not obey the commands of the petitioners, they
had attacked respondent No. 2 and used caste related abuses against
him. Even, the petitioner was in custody from 15.09.2012 to
28.01.2013 and the complaint has been filed on 30.03.2013, after the
grant of bail to the respondent No. 2. Thus, there was no delay in
registration of the FIR in the present case.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
8. In the present case, the occurrence had taken place in the
evening of 17.07.2012. Immediately after the occurrence, the matter
was reported by the petitioners to the police and one FIR No. 165
dated 20.07.2012 under Sections 324, 326, 341 and 506 of IPC Police
Station Patran was ordered to be registered against the respondent
No. 2 and his co-accused. Even, the respondent No. 2 was arrested by
the police on 15.09.2012 and was later on released on bail on
28.01.2013. It is admitted case of the complainant that from
20.07.2012 to 15.09.2012, the he neither approached the police nor
filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners. Even, as per his
6 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 30-11-2024 12:11:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155284
CRM M-18550 of 2014 (O&M) -7-
own version, he was released on bail on 28.01.2013. However, he
moved a complaint to the SHO on 29.01.2013 and filed the present
complaint on 30.03.2013, i.e., after about 08 months of the
occurrence. Thus, it is apparent that there is considerable delay in
filing the instant complaint before the trial Court, which had not been
explained by the prosecution even during the course of preliminary
evidence. This delay raises serious concerns with regard to the
veracity and purity of the allegations levelled by the complainant and
certainly affects the credibility and the evidentiary value of the
allegations levelled by the respondent No. 2.
9. Still further, in the present case, the respondent No. 2 has
lodged the FIR under Section 3(x)(ii)(viii) of the SC and ST Act by
alleging that the petitioners had used caste related derogatory remarks
against the respondent No. 2. While narrating this incident, it has no
where been mentioned in the complaint by the respondent
No. 2/complainant that the petitioners were aware that the respondent
No. 2 belonged to a scheduled caste. Merely because of the fact that
the respondent No. 2 had been employed by Balbir Singh in a nearby
fields is no ground to draw an inference in this regard.
10. It is not spelled out from the allegations levelled in the
complaint that the petitioners were conscious of the fact that the
complainant belonged to a scheduled castes at the time of the alleged
incident. Even otherwise, the utterances did not constitute an offence
as the alleged incident had not taken place in a public place. Thus, the
7 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 30-11-2024 12:11:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155284
CRM M-18550 of 2014 (O&M) -8-
prosecution of the petitioners in respect of the offence under Section
Section 3(x)(ii)(viii) of the SC and ST Act, as such, was not warranted
from the facts brought on record and the proceedings in this regard
cannot be sustained.
11. Still further, the respondent No. 2 and his co-accused
were tried by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samana in a
trial arising out of the FIR No. 165 dated 20.07.2012 under Sections
324, 326, 341 and 506 of IPC Police Station Patran and vide the
judgment dated 31.08.2017, the respondent No. 2 and his co-accused
were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324,
34 and 506 IPC and were sentenced to the maximum sentence of 02
years. Now, it is apparent that the trial remained pending for almost
05 years, however, the respondent No. 2 made no efforts for the trial
of the present complaint as well as trial in a State case by the same
Court. The question whether the proceedings in a criminal case not
governed by Section 468 Cr.P.C. could be quashed on the ground of
delay has been gone into in several decisions. While it is true that the
cases covered by the statutory bar of limitation, may be liable to be
quashed without any further inquiry, the cases not covered by the
statutory bar can also be quashed on the ground of delay in filing the
criminal complaint in appropriate cases. In such cases, the question
for consideration is whether there is violation of right of speedy trial,
which has been held to be part of Article 21 of the Constitution of
8 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 30-11-2024 12:11:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155284
CRM M-18550 of 2014 (O&M) -9-
India having regard to the nature of the offences, extent of delay,
person responsible for the delay and other attending circumstances.
12. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the matter Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2009(1) RCR
(Criminal) 802: 2009(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 648:
(2009) 3 SCC 355 as under:-
“18. Time and again this Court has emphasised the need
for speedy investigations and trial as both are mandated
by the letter and spirit of the provisions of CrPC [in
particular, Sections 197, 173, 309, 437(6) and 468, etc.]
and the constitutional protection enshrined in Article 21
of the Constitution. Inspired by the broad sweep and
content of Article 21 as interpreted by a seven-Judge
Bench of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India [(1978) 1 SCC 248] and in Hussainara Khatoon
(1) v. State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81] this Court had
observed that Article 21 confers a fundamental right on
every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty
except according to procedure established by law; that
such procedure is not some semblance of a procedure but
the procedure should be “reasonable, fair and just”; and
therefrom flows, without doubt, the right to speedy trial.
It was also observed that: [Hussainara Khatoon (1)
case, SCC p. 89, para 5].
“5. … No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably
quick trial can be regarded as ‘reasonable, fair or just’
and it would fall foul of Article 21.”
The Court clarified that speedy trial means reasonably
expeditious trial which is an integral and essential part
9 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 30-11-2024 12:11:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155284
CRM M-18550 of 2014 (O&M) -10-
of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in
Article 21.
19. The exposition of Article 21 in Hussainara Khatoon
(1) case was exhaustively considered afresh by the
Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S.
Nayak [( 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 634:(1992) 1 SCC
225]. Referring to a number of decisions of this Court
and the American precedents on the Sixth Amendment of
their Constitution, making the right to a speedy and
public trial a constitutional guarantee, the Court
formulated as many as eleven propositions with a note of
caution that these were not exhaustive and were meant
only to serve as guidelines.
xxxxxx
22. Speaking for the majority in P. Ramachandra Rao
[200292) RCR (Criminal) 553: (2002) 4 SCC 578, R.C.
Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) while affirming
that the dictum in A.R. Antulay case as correct and the
one which still holds the field and the propositions
emerging from Article 21 of the Constitution and
expounding the right to speedy trial laid down as
guidelines in the said case adequately take care of the
right to speedy trial, it was held that:
(P. Ramachandra case, SCC p. 603, para 29)
“(3) … guidelines laid down in A.R. Antulay case are not
exhaustive but only illustrative. They are not intended to
operate as hard-and-fast rules or to be applied [as] a
straitjacket formula. Their applicability would depend
on the fact situation of each case [as] [i]t is difficult to
foresee all situations and no generalisation can be
made.”
10 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 30-11-2024 12:11:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155284
CRM M-18550 of 2014 (O&M) -11-
23. It has also been held that: (P. Ramachandra case,
SCC p. 603, para 29)
“(4) It is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially
permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for
conclusion of all criminal proceedings.”
Nonetheless,
“(5) the criminal courts should exercise their available
powers, such as those under Sections 309, 311 and 258
CrPC to effectuate the right to speedy trial. … In
appropriate cases, jurisdiction of the High Court under
Section 482 CrPC and Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or
suitable directions”**.
(emphasis added)
The outer limits or power of limitation expounded in the
aforenoted judgments were held to be not in consonance
with the legislative intent.
24. It is, therefore, well settled that the right to speedy
trial in all criminal persecutions (sic prosecutions) is an
inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
This right is applicable not only to the actual
proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep
the preceding police investigations as well. The right to
speedy trial extends equally to all criminal prosecutions
and is not confined to any particular category of cases.
In every case, where the right to speedy trial is alleged
to have been infringed, the court has to perform the
balancing act upon taking into consideration all the
attendant circumstances, enumerated above, and
determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial
has been denied in a given case.”
11 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 12:11:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155284
CRM M-18550 of 2014 (O&M) -12-
13. Still further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the
matter of Sirajul and others Vs. The State of U.P. and another,
2015(9) SCC 201: 2015(3) RCR (Criminal) 661 as follows:-
“17. It is thus clear from the above observations that
mere delay in completion of proceedings may not be by
itself a ground to quash proceedings where offences are
serious, but the Court having regard to the conduct of
the parties, nature of offence and the extent of delay in
the facts and circumstances of a given case, quash the
proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of
process of the Court.
18. In the present case, conduct of the complainant can
certainly be taken into account. Admittedly, the
complainant stood convicted in a cross case. At least for
ten years after commencement of the trial, the
complainant did not even bother to seek simultaneous
trial of the cross case, the step which was taken for the
first time in the year 2005 which could certainly have
been taken in the year 1995 itself when the trial against
respondent No.2 commenced. Having regard to the
nature of allegations and entirety of circumstances, it
will be unfair and unjust to permit respondent No.2 to
proceed with a complaint filed 16 years after the incident
against the appellants”.
14. In the present case also, the complaint remained pending
for several years and no application was filed by respondent No. 2
under Section 210 Cr.P.C. and now no purpose would be served by
ordering the prosecution of the petitioners, after a long delay of 14
12 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 30-11-2024 12:11:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:155284
CRM M-18550 of 2014 (O&M) -13-
years, when the respondent No. 2 and his co-accused have already
been convicted in a criminal trial, relating to the same occurrence.
15. In view of the above discussion, the instant petition is
allowed and the impugned complaint bearing No. 32 dated
30.03.2013 under Sections 323, 506 and 34 IPC and Section 3(x)(ii)
(viii) of SC and ST Act, Police Station Patran, District Patiala
(Annexure P-1), summoning order dated 18.03.2014 (Annexure P-2)
and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom are liable to
be quashed by this Court.
16. CRM 10113 of 2023 stands disposed off accordingly.
25.11.2024 (N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
amit rana JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
13 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 30-11-2024 12:11:03 :::