HAMIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of the following facts : -

(2.) RESPONDENT No.2 Smt. Savitri Devi, widow of Himmat Singh, the younger brother of Hamir Singh, the petitioner filed a complaint Annexure P -1 under Sections 107151, Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner on February 13, 1991, on the allegations that there was a dispute between the two with regard to the cutting of trees in the agricultural land belonging to the complainant's deceased husband and on account of this factor, the relations between them were strained. She further stated that on January 18, 1991, when she was sleeping in her house along with her son, there was a knocking at the gate at about 10.00 p.m. and on looking out from the window she saw the petitioner along with two unknown persons standing there. She opened the door and after coming out, told the three persons not to enter the premises, but despite this, the petitioner jumped across the wall, pushed open the door of the house and gave her a beating and also threatened to kill her in case she raised a dispute with regard to the cutting of the trees. She further stated that when her son got up, the petitioner and the other two persons drove away in a Maruti Van. The petitioner was accordingly summoned by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the matter was heard on June 13, 1991, on which date the complainant Smt. Savitri Devi made a statement that she did not wish to pursue the matter and the same be dismissed. The Sub Divisional Magistrate nevertheless while noticing the fact that statement had been made by the petitioner in the manner indicated above, also came to the conclusion that the complaint was a motivated one, without any substance and had been filed only to put pressure on the petitioner in the dispute with regard to the agricultural land. The complaint was accordingly dismissed vide order Annexure P -3. While the matter was yet pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the petitioner moved another complaint dated April 23, 1991, Copy Annexure P -2 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, on exactly similar facts and sought the intervention of the Court to proceed against the petitioner now under Sections 323/452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The proceedings in this complaint case have been impugned in this section under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for seeking their quashing.

(3.) I have gone through the record of the case and have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, and find that the present petition deserves to succeed. It cannot be disputed that both the complaints Annexures P -1 and P -2 were identical in substance and merely because the complaint Annexure P -2 sought to spell out a different set of offences on the same facts alleged in the complaint Annexure P -1 would not make the second complaint competent once the first complaint had been got dismissed on the statement of the complaint herself that she did not wish to pursue the complaint. It is also significant that against the order Annexure P -3 dismissing the complaint. Annexure P -1, respondent No.2 had also filed a revision petition in the Court of the Sessions Judge as stated by Mr. Majithia but that matter too was dismissed in default and no further action was taken by respondent No.2 against that order. Once the order in the complaint Annexure P -1 became final, no second complaint would be competent on similar facts as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramatha Nath Talukdar and another v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876.