Surinder Kumar vs Pardip Kumar

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Surinder Kumar and his brother Rakesh Kumar have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint under Sections 392, 506/34 I.P.C. pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, Annexure P/1 and the summoning order dated 24.9.1991 Annexure P/2.

The brief resume of the facts necessary for the disposal of this petition is that Pardeep Kumar respondent filed the above mentioned complaint against the petitioners on the allegations that there was a dispute regarding some shop between his father and the petitioners and Rakesh Kumar petitioner had filed a suit for eviction in a Civil Court which was pending. Surinder Kumar petitioner filed a false complaint against him before Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar on 9.5.1990 and an application was also moved against him by Rakesh Kumar in the month of July 1991 before Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar. The petitioners were out to harm the person and property of the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences. On 21.1.1971 the complainant was present near the temple of Lalli Shah, Daal Mandi, Amritsar, when he was waylaid by Rakesh Kumar and Surinder Kumar petitioners and Rakesh Kumar pointing a revolver towards his chest enquired from him whether he was going to vacate the shop or not. Surinder Kumar removed his wrist watch and gold ring. Rakesh Kumar too robbed him of an amount of Rs. 575/ which he removed from the pocket of his shirt. The occurrence was witnessed by Vedang Bhushan and Amar Singh and Rakesh Kumar also threatened them with dire consequences if they came near him.

After preliminary evidence was recorded the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar found that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners for offences under Sections 392/506 read with Section 34, I.P.C. vide Annexure P/2.

The petitioners made averments in the petition that no offence under Section 392, I.P.C. was made out against them as none of them had attempted to cause death, hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint while committing theft. The petitioner threatened the respondent with dire consequences in case he did not vacate the shop. The robbery was a serious offence but the matter was not reported to the Station House Officer or to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar and the respondent was satisfied by reporting the matter to Moharrir Head Constable only. The relations between the parties were strained and the respondent could go to any length to implicate the petitioners in a false case.

In the return filed by the respondent the averments made in the petition were denied and it was maintained that the allegations made in the complaint implicitly attracted the ingredients of offence under Section 392, I.P.C. and these allegations were further supported by the witnesses who were examined by the Court holding enquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. The matter was reported to the Police immediately but the Moharrir Head Constable did not take any action. The complaint was lodged instantly to avoid delay. The credibility of the witnesses was to be considered by the trial Court after providing opportunity to the petitioners to crossexamine them and the fact that same witness was cited in another incident was no ground for quashing the complaint.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly urged that from the allegations made in the complaint a prima facie case under Section 392, I.P.C. was not made out as no hurt or wrongful restraint nor fear of instant death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint was caused to the complainant while taking away his wrist watch, gold ring and money. Although it was alleged that there was a show of pistol but that was not for the purpose of depriving the complainant of his belonging but for the purpose of threatening him to vacate the shop. This contention of the learned counsel is, however without any merit. The allegations in the complaint were to the effect that Rakesh Kumar was armed with a pistol at the time of occurrence and he pointed that pistol towards the chest of the complainant and asked him when he will vacate the shop. He continued pointing that pistol and the complainant was overawed with the fear of instant death or instant hurt. When Surinder Kumar took away his wrist watch and gold ring. The two witnesses who were present, were also put in fear of death and Rakesh Kumar took away Rs. 575/ from the front pocket of the shirt of the complainant. There was thus, imminent fear of violence. The ingredients of an offence under Section 392, I.P.C. were prima facie spelled out. The trial court examined the complainant and two other witnesses and found that prima facie case was made out against the petitioner to put them on a regular trial. The question whether evidence is adequate for supporting conviction is to be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that robbery being a serious crime the incident should have been brought to the notice of Senior Superintendent of Police or Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station and by not doing so the complaint could not be considered as truthful, is also not tenable. The respondent has specifically mentioned in the complaint that after the incident he went to police station ''C'' Division and narrated the whole occurrence to Moharrir Head Constable but he refused to register any case and asked him to approach the Court. The complaint is not liable to be quashed simply because the matter was not reported to Senior police officers.

For the reasons recorded above I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.