Piara Singh v. State Of Punjab And ANR
"# $!%&'&"()*+ + ,
Piara Singh ...... Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and anr.
...Respondents
- . + / / /
Present:
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Toor, AAG, Punjab Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate as Amicus Curiae, for respondent No.2.
***** / /
0
+
1 2 This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.0067 dated 17.07.2020 under Sections 484/485/506 and 500 IPC, registered at Police Station Singh Bhagwantpur, District Rupnagar (Annexure P81) alongwith challan submitted by the police (Annexure P82) and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of Satwinder Kaur8respondent No.2 and reads as under:8
!
" #$ %
& #
'(
"))
)!)*)' +
"))'''
# +) ! ), -./// -. (0 ( $ 1 ' 2 ! 3 (4 (
5 (
6 7+
( ! '
+ # +
( + ( + ! ! ! ( $ , (2 2 ! (( 6 9 !'
!(! !
' ( #+ !+ (* ( # ! &$6 ( :
.! + --)-:)/ 5 ' +( , ( ( #+ !+
!'
!((+ !! 0 (
(+ (
(
9
9 ; #
6
$ (
< 6 !
+
7+
,
( (
( #+ !+'
!
%
' ( '
+ ' '( ( (2< 9 !'
' '( + (
'
'( ,+ + +
( 7+
(+ !+ + '( (* (
! + ( # (
+ ( 0 ( # , '+
,
+ # ( 7+
! = ( ' (
,
# !
+ # ! 1
3.
On culmination of investigation, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.p.C. was presented and the relevant extract of the same is as under:8 >
( + 3$ (
4
' , ' +
'( +
'( ,
'
(+ '
(! , +
(+ 7+
? (7; @.@/-(
, (+ ' (
+
/@--/ + ! 1 ' 2 ! 6) ( ! 9 !'
(
6 !(
6) 5 6 ! 5 (
1 '((+ A ...'
2 )7, ! 6)B ! ( 9 !'
(
! 2 ! '((
1 (
+ + , '
! 2 !
1 + !+ ( , (
'(, ! ( ( + (
' 37, ! 4 5 ' 3' = 1 4
'37+ ! C 4 (' ( ( ! '(+ (
'(* (
!
'(
+
1 +
7+
! () B !D ' > ( 9 ; # (
(
(
( + !'
7+
! , ( ++ ('(
'
+
'('
,
(
'( ( ++
++ ( 1 '(( !'
( 7+
! '( (3 (4 7+
,'
+ ( ( !+ + +
( * ( #
(
( +
( (( ( ! , ! 7+
! D ' ( + ++ ((( ! , ! ( - . !, +
+
'(
!!
+'
2< ! + 9 !'
6 ! ( 7+
! +
+
' ' 7+
( ! + ++ (
,
+
! ( +
+
1 ( ( , (
6 ! %
1+ 2
=( ' ! =!B ,,
# '( , , '
(
, !(
7+
! + (
+ @@/-
, 7+
! ( '
+(
"
< ((+
7+
!
) ! 6) B ! D ' > ( 9 ; # (
,( ! (
! + )(:@:
:@ / $ &$6
( ,( ! (+ ( (
,, (+ ( (
2< ! 9 !'
! ( &$6 ,( ! +
((
+
)
!$76 ! :
! !'
6 ! ('
E, ! (+ )' +$
,( ! $
+ ! ,( ! ( (&$6 ( 7$1( + /)67$ ( 1 +@)6 ' + ( (
(
( ( ( ( ' '( , (( ( ( (( (
( ( ( +
(
+
7$
+ ! 7$1( + /)6 7 ( 1 + @)6 , ' ,( ! , ' + , ,( !
(:@:):@)/) $ +(
+
( ((!
7+
! ) ! )1 # ! ! )1 # ! B !D ' > ( 9 ; # (
( ( )(- &$6 ( (
, , ! , (
( ( ! ,( ! '
((' ! ,( +
(
+
! ( ++ ( 4.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations of the petitioner making defamatory statements against respondent No.82/Satwinder Kaur and circulating the same are baseless. There is no such video where the petitioner can be seen making any statement against the complainant/respondent No.2. The defamatory video,
if any, is of Amarjit Singh alone. He, therefore, contends that the present FIR (Annexure P81), report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P82) and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed qua the petitioner.
5.
The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, while referring to the affidavit dated 31.01.2024 contends that the petitioner8Piara Singh and his son Amarjit Singh/co8accused had held a press conference against complainant8respondent No.2/Satwinder Kaur and had levelled false allegations that she had been indulging in illegal sale of intoxicating drugs. There were photographs and videos wherein the petitioner could be seen alongwith his son8Amarjit Singh levelling such allegations. However, on his having examined the record, he concedes that the video is only of Amarjit Singh giving a sound bite to an anchor to the effect that complainant8 respondent No.2 was involved in the drug trade alongwith one DSP. 6.
None had appeared on behalf of respondents No.2 despite service. Consequently, Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate, had been appointed as an Amicus Curiae to represent respondent No.2 in this case. On examination of the record, the Amicus Curiae fairly concedes that there is no such video in the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. where the petitioner can be seen making any defamatory statement against the complainant8respondent No.2. However, there is one video where Amarjit Singh can be seen making a statement pertaining to the complainant8respondent No.2. 7.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8.
The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations levelled in the FIR and the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. of the petitioner making defamatory statements is not borne out from the record as has been admitted not only by the learned State counsel but also by the Amicus Curiae, both of whom have equivocally stated that in the video which is a part of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. only Amarjit Singh is seen talking to a Journalist but not the petitioner. Therefore, apparently, no offence is made out qua the petitioner and the institution of the instant proceedings are nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court qua petitioner.
9.
In view of the above discussion, the FIR No.0067 dated 17.07.2020 under Sections 484/485/506 and 500 IPC, registered at Police Station Singh Bhagwantpur, District Rupnagar (Annexure P81), the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed qua the petitioner.
10.
The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
/ /
343'
)*0 ,
sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No