Madan Lal @ Maddi vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

Whether under aiding section such as 511 IPC and 34 IPC a substantive charge can be framed against an accused is a question of law which requires consideration in the petition filed in this court by Madan Lal alias Maddi under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the quashment of FIR, Annexure P1, chargesheet, Annexure P2, and subsequent proceedings. The petitioner Madan Lal alias Maddi along with Shri Vijay Kumar alias Mintoo was chargesheeted in case FIR No. 107 dated 9th August, 1966, P.S. Garhshankar, registered under Section 420/511/182 read with Section 34 IPC and the allegations against the petitioner and his coaccused are contained in para Nos. 1 and 2 of the impugned order which I need not reproduce but suffice to mention that in the concluding para of the impugned order the learned Magistrate passed the order and the accused are discharged for the alleged commission of offence under Section 420/182 IPC but chargesheet against them for the commission of offence under Section 511 read with Section 34 IPC is ordered to be framed.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sections 511 and 34 IPC are not the substantive sections themselves. These are the sections under which an accused can be convicted with the aid of substantive sections such as 420 regarding which the learned Magistrate has already formulated an opinion that accused are not guilty for the offence under Sections 420 and 182 IPC and in these circumstances the accused cannot be tried and prosecuted for the offence under Section 511 read with Section 34 IPC which sections themselves are only aiding sections and in the absence of any substantive section defining the offence the petitioner cannot be tried and convicted under these offences individually or collectively. I find sufficient force in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is a patent illegality which has been committed by the learned Magistrate when he ordered for the proceedings of the trial for the offence under Section 511 read with Section 34 IPC without coming to the conclusion that no prima facie offence has been committed by the petitioner and his coaccused under any substantive offence.

The learned Deputy AdvocateGeneral, Punjab submits that the petitioner had equally efficacious remedy to contest the charge in a court of revision but the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked. So far as the proposition of the law put forth by the learned counsel is concerned, there is no dispute about it but once this court finds that the learned Magistrate has committed a patent illegality in coming to the root of the case itself then Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not drag this court from complying with its duty to ensure the remedial measure under the law. For any sufficient cause and for the advancement of the justice Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be independently invoked irrespective of the fact that the charge has been framed. As I remarked above that the accused cannot be individually tried and prosecuted for the commission of the offence under Sections 511 read with Section 34 IPC, it will not be wrong if I say that two zeros cannot make a figure. If zero is multiplied with the help of zero, the net result will be zero. In this view of the matter I allow this petition and quash the charge sheet, Annexure P2, with the directions to the learned Magistrate to re examine the entire matter and then formulate an independent opinion whether the petitioner can be chargesheeted for any substantive offence under Sections 511 and 34 IPC individually or collectively. It may also be clarified to the learned Magistrate that the petitioner who had already been exonerated for the offence under Sections 420 and 182 of IPC could not be chargesheeted again on these charges. It is also stated that if the learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has not committed any offence, he will be entitled to be discharged. The petition stands disposed of.