Jagmohan Singh vs State of Punjab

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Jagmohan Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing F.I.R. No. 14 dated 27.1.1991 registered at Police Station Zira under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act and the proceedings arising therefrom pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Zira.

A case against Jagmohan Singh was registered on an application submitted by one Mohinder Singh to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Zira, which was as under :

"Sir,

It is submitted that I am a resident of village Behak Gujran. Today on 25.1.91, I along with Karnail Singh s/o Ram Singh resident of Chgali, P. S. Mallanwala, was travelling by my jeep at about 6.15 p.m. after having started from the house of Jujhar Singh s/o Gurdial Singh resident of Zira, whose sister''s marriage was being solemnised. I was on way to my village Behak Gujran and was driving the jeep myself. When we reached near the agency for Ford tractors, a white Maruti Car bearing No. 2584 came from the opposite side. It was being driven by Jasbir Singh r/o Bandala Nau Bamb. The occupants of the car were Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga son of Baldev Singh Brar, Dalip and Chamkaur Singh ss/o Joginder Singh, resident of Lehra Rohi and Jaswinder Singh s/o Balwinder Singh r/o Bothianwala, Jagmohan Singh @ Jagga aforesaid was armed with a .315 bore rifle, Chamkaur Singh s/o Joginder Singh was carrying a 12 bore DBBL gun and Jaswinder Singh also appeared to be armed. On seeing my jeep, Jagmohan Singh fired from his .315 bore rifle but my jeep was at a fast speed and the fire proved ineffective because the jeep had covered a distance. In the meantime, another shot was fired towards the jeep but I sped away with the jeep. If I had not sped away on the jeep, the shots would have hit me. Action be taken.

Sd/ Mohinderjit Singh s/o

Gurdip Singh

r/o Behak Gujran,

25.1.91."

After registration of the case, investigation was conducted and it was found that the applicant had wrongly mentioned the names of Jaswinder Singh and Chamkaur Singh. Jaswinder Singh was implicated due to party faction. So challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented only against Jagmohan Singh. Jagmohan Singh was chargesheeted on 28.8.1991 for firing rounds from his licensed .315 rifle rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life, punishable under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner alleged that even if the entire allegations made in the First Information Report were taken on their face value, no offence under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code was made out. There was no averment that the act of the petitioner endangered human life. The provisions of Section 336 I.P.C. were not attracted in a case of specific assault. The police could not record the statement of any person from the neighbouring area and thus there was no legal evidence to constitute any offence.

In the return filed by the respondent, the allegations made in the petition were denied but this fact was admitted that the relations between the parties were inimical.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the police proceedings which were reproduced in para 3 of the petition and which were admitted to be correct by Sub Inspector Darshan Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station, Zira in his affidavit. According to these proceedings, it was observed by the Investigating Agency that there was longstanding enmity between Mohinderjit Singh complainant and Jagmohan Singh the present petitioner and the complainant moved the application because of the enmity. As a matter of fact, force had been deployed on ZiraTalwandi crossing on account of the Punjab Bandh. A Canter belonging to the police station was on patrol duty on that part of the ZiraTalwandi Road, where shots were allegedly fired. No one heard the report of the gunshots. Therefore, the entire matter appeared to be suspicious. It was urged that in view of the facts mentioned in the police proceedings the case against the petitioner was highly suspicious but even otherwise no offence under Section 336 I.P.C. was made out because there was no allegation that the petitioner fired shots in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life. The allegations in the First Information Report were that the petitioner fired from his rifle when he noticed the jeep of the complainant but as the jeep was running at a fast speed, the fire proved ineffective.

I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel because an intentional act done with consideration is not rash and negligent act. The word ''rashly'' implies indifference to obvious consequences and to the rights of others. In Kundan Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1975 Chandigarh Law Reporter 523 it was held that :

"It is a prerequisite of the offence under Section 336 I.P.C. that the act must be rash and negligent and not deliberate. A rash act is primarily an overhasty act done without due care and caution and is opposed to deliberate act. The circumstances of the case in hand do not justify a conclusion that the act of which the appellant is accused was either negligent or rash. If the prosecution case is believed, Kundan Singh or his companions had opened fire at the ambush party when challenged. They must have been alive to the identity of the persons obstructing their route. These shots must have been fired either to kill any member of the ambush party or scare them away. In both these cases the element of deliberate intent is found to be present. Nothing can be rash or negligent if the result to be achieved can be spelled out from the act done."

In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner were that he fired when he saw the jeep of the complainant but due to long distance and fast speed of the jeep the shot did not hit anyone. There were no allegations that the petitioner acted rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life or personal safety of the others. The ingredients of the offence under Section 336 I.P.C. were thus not made out for which alone he was charged. The First Information Report in question, is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

For the reasons recorded above, I allow this petition and quash First Information Report No. 14 dated 27.1.1991 registered at Police Station, Zira and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.