Avtar Singh @ Babbu vs Jatinder Singh

M. Jeyapaul, J.—The present petition is filed by Avtar Singh @ Babbu u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal complaint under Sections 307/326/325/324/323/506/148/149 IPC titled as Jatinder Singh v. Narinder Singh and others and the summoning order dated 17.4.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate I Class, Jalandhar.

An occurrence had taken place on 23.2.2010 for which a First Information Report was registered based on the complaint given by complainant Jatinder Singh on 25.2.2010. A closure report was submitted by the Investigating Agency pursuant to which a protest petition was presented by the respondent-complainant on 18.10.2010. The Judicial Magistrate I Class, Jalandhar, vide order dated 22.12.2011 chose to accept the cancellation report and accordingly, dismissed the protest petition filed by the respondent. Against the said order, complainant preferred a revision petition which was partly allowed by the revisional Court vide order dated 13.9.2012, directing the trial Court to restore the protest petition, permit the complainant to lead further evidence and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Trial Court took the protest petition on its file as per directions of the revisional Court and afforded an opportunity to the complainant who failed to lead evidence. Resultantly, the protest petition was dismissed vide order dared 24.10.2013.

Trial Court having taken cognizance of the private complaint submitted by the respondent-complainant, issued summons to the accused for appearance before the Court. The private complaint preferred by the respondent and the summoning order passed by the trial Court are under challenge in the present petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the private complaint filed by the respondent should not have been legally entertained by the trial Court inasmuch as the closure report filed by the Investigating official in connection with very same occurrence was accepted, rejecting the protest raised by the complainant.

The protest petition has been filed by the complainant aggrieved by the decision arrived at by the Investigating Agency based on the materials collected by it. Therefore, even if the protest petition was rejected and the closure report accepted by the trial Court, the complainant is always at liberty to prefer a private complaint and the Judicial Magistrate is well within his powers to entertain such complaint, record evidence adduced by the complainant and issue summons if he is satisfied that a prima-facie case was made out by the complainant. The principle of res-judicata does not apply to such a situation. Therefore, I find that there is no error in the summoning order passed by the trial Court entertaining the private complaint and the evidence adduced by the complainant substantiating prima-facie the allegations made in the complaint. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.