Lal Singh vs State of Punjab

K.S. Kumaran, J. (Oral)

Lal Singh and others have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR 15 dated 18.3.1995 under Sections 382, 365, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code of Police Station Bhadaur. This FIR came up to be registered on the basis of a complaint given by Sukhdev Singh son of Jagrup Singh, the Conductor of the Bus No. PAB9819 of Guru Nanak Transport Company, Nainewal. A reading of the FIR (Annexure P1) shows that the following allegations have been made there :

That on 28.2.1995 the said Bus left the Bus Stand, Bhadaur, at 4.45 p.m. when Darshan Singh and others took a lift in the bus, but stopped it, after threatening the driver, near the truck union, Bhadaur.

It has also been mentioned that some persons who were also waiting in an Ambassador car and a Jeep beat the Conductor, the Driver, and the passengers, made the driver get down from the bus, and had taken the Bus.

A reading of this FIR certainly discloses the commission of cognizable offence. But the learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand contended that Darshan Singh, Balour Singh, Amarjit Singh and Lal Singh were partners of the Guru Nanak Transport Company which owned the bus though Balour Singh had ceased to be a partner from 3.8.1998. The learned counsel, therefore, contends that there cannot be an allegation that the owners of the bus themselves had committed such offence and there cannot be a complaint of this type. He, therefore, contends that this is an abuse of process of law. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon Annexure P/2 which is a copy of a certificate issued by the Registrar of Firms showing the name of the firm as well as the partners. But, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that even if the allegation that the petitionersparty were also partners of the business, it does not give them the right to beat the Conductor, driver and take the bus after threatening them, and that the petitionersparty, if they were really the owners or representing the partners, they should take appropriate proceedings according to law. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that a case is clearly made out from the FIR.

The second contention put forward by the respondent is that report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also been filed and, therefore, it is no more open to the petitioners to seek the quashing of the FIR. The law is well settled that once the chargesheet is presented to the Court, this Court will be very reluctant to quash the FIR unless there are forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that this is clearly a case of abuse of process of law inasmuch as the complaint has been made against the partners. But as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent even an owner is not entitled to take law into his own hands. If the allegations made in the complaint are true, then the persons who had committed the offences are liable to punishment despite the fact that any one of them happened to be a partner. As pointed out already even a partner is bound to proceed in accordance with law and not to take law into his hands and commit offences. Therefore, this contention that this complaint is an abuse of process of law cannot be accepted.

Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent is that a previous application for quashing the very FIR was filed in this Court and was withdrawn and, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand relied upon the decision in Supdt. & Remembrancer, W.B. v. Mohan Singh, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1002, in support of his contention that there is no bar for a second application seeking quashment of the FIR. This decision supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

In view of the fact that the reading of the FIR discloses the commission of the cognizable offences, and inasmuch as the chargesheet has also been filed, I am of the view that no grounds have been made out to quash the FIR. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that one of the accused, Darshan Singh, has gone abroad and is not presenting himself before the Court, and, therefore, the case is lingering on. He contends that the other accused are unnecessarily being put to lot of trouble. The court concerned will take into consideration the unnecessary harassment caused to the other accused in view of the absence of the coaccused Darshan Singh and will take appropriate action for splitting the case of Darshan Singh and proceeding with the case of the remaining accused. It is also made clear that it is open to all the accused to take all the pleas of defence before the Court concerned.

The Court concerned will also expedite the trial of the case and dispose of the same within a period of six months.

Any observation made herein shall not be taken by the Court concerned as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case, and the case shall be disposed of by the trial court in accordance with law on merits.

This petition is dismissed subject to the above observations.