Criminal Appeal No. 1833/2011
The respondent Sohan Singh was an employee of the
appellant-Darshan Singh Saini. According to Sohan Singh, he was
engaged by the appellant in hotel Geetanjali Guest House, which the
appellant owned at Baddi, in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Based
on the services rendered by the respondent, certain emoluments
which were due to the respondent, were allegedly not paid to Sohan
Singh by the appellant. It was also asserted at the behest of the
respondent, that on occasions, when he demanded the arrears of salary payable to him,JUDGMENThe was threatened by Darshan Singh Saini,
that in case the appellant ever set eyes on the respondent-Sohan
Singh, he will be killed.
The respondent is stated to have made a complaint in respect
of the threatening conduct of the appellant-Darshan Singh Saini
(and his father-Beli Ram). On coming to know about the complaint
made by the respondent, it is the assertion of Sohan Singh, that
the appellant – Darshan Singh Saini, abused him in the name of his
mother and sister on 15.1.2008, as also on account of the fact,
that he belonged to the scheduled caste. Besides being abused, it
was also sought to be asserted by Sohan Singh, that the appellant -
Darshan Singh Saini slapped the respondent, and gave him
fist-blows, after holding his neck, and pushing him to the ground.
It was also the contention of the respondent-Sohan Singh, that in
the aforesaid incident, the father of the appellant - Beli Ram
supported Darshan Singh Saini. According to the
respondent-complainant, the respondent could be saved in the above
abusing and assaulting incident, only on account of the
intervention of Bhagat Ram and Chet Ram.
It was also sought to be asserted, that the animosity
between the parties is based on the fact, that the appellant and
his father believed, that the respondent-Sohan Singh, did not
support them during the State Assembly elections, in 2007.
It is also apparent from the pleadings of this case, that
according to the respondent, the police did not interfere, when the
respondent repeatedly visited the police station, to lodge his
complaint. It is therefore, that the respondent - Sohan Singh JUDGMENT lodged a written complaint on 24-01-2008, before the Learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan,
Himachal Pradesh.
The appellant-Darshan Singh Saini, approached the High Court
under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when he was
summoned by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nalagarh,
District Solan, Himachal Pradesh through an order dated 06-02-2009.
A perusal of order dated 06-02-2009 reveals, that the appellant was
summoned under Sections 341 and 506, read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
The High Court, by the impugned order dated 08-04-2010, while
partly accepting the prayer of the appellant, quashed the
proceedings initiated against the appellant under Sections 341 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code, but arrived at the conclusion, that
there was reasonable ground to proceed against the appellant under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
It was the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the
appellant, that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not
acceptable in law, on account of the fact, that cognizance in the
matter could not have been taken against the appellant, on account
of the period of limitation depicted under Section 468 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. In this behalf, it was the pointed
contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, that whilst
the instant incident was of 15-01-2008, cognizance thereof was
taken on 06.02.2009. This contention of the learned Counsel for the
appellant was premised on the fact, that though the complaint had
been made on 24-01-2008, cognizance thereof was taken beyond a JUDGMENT period of limitation of one year(on 06-02-2009).
We have considered the aforesaid contention advanced at the
hands of the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is apparent from
the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant,
that he is calculating limitation by extending the same to the
order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nalagarh, on
06.02.2009. The instant contention is wholly misconceived on
account of the legal position declared by a Constitution Bench of
this Court in Sarah Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular
Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62, wherein in para 51, this Court has held
as under :
“51. In view of the above, we hold that for
the purpose of computing the period of
limitation under Section 468 CrPC the relevant
date is the date of filing of the complaint or
the date of institution of prosecution and not
the date on which the Magistrate takes
cognizance. We further hold that Bharat Kale
which is followed in Japani Sahoo lays down the
correct law. Krishna Pillai will have to be
restricted to its own facts and it is not the
authority for deciding the question as to what
is the relevant date for the purpose of
computing the period of limitation under Section
468 CrPC.”
In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied, that keeping in
mind the allegations levelled against the appellant by the
respondent, the date of limitation had to be determined with
reference to the date of incident and the date when the complaint
was filed by the respondent. Since the complaint was filed by the
respondent on 24-01-2008, with reference to an incident of
15.01.2008, we are of the view, that Section 468 of the Criminal
Procedure Code would not stand in the way of the respondent, in JUDGMENT prosecuting the complaint filed by him.
The second contention advanced at the hands of the learned
Counsel for the appellant was based on the fact, that no cognizance
was taken by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nalagarh,
against the appellant under Section 323 of the IPC, and as such, it
was not permissible for the High Court to have initiated
proceedings against the appellant, under Section 323 of the IPC,
whilst accepting the contention of the appellant to set aside the
proceedings initiated by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Nalagarh under Sections 341 and 506 of the IPC read with Section 34
thereof (vide order dated 6.2.2009).
It is not possible for us to accept the instant contention,
principally on the basis of Section 216 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, which postulates that it is open to “any court” to alter
or add to any charge, at any time before the judgment is
pronounced.
In the above view of the matter, we find no merit in this
appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Criminal Appeal no. 1834/2011
Insofar as the connected appeal filed by the respondent -
Sohan Singh is concerned, who claims that charges be framed against
Darshan Singh Saini and his father Beli Ram, under the provisions
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Atrocities and
Prevention) Act, we are of the view that the High Court was fully
justified in rejecting the aforesaid prayer, on account of the fact
that Sohan Singh did not indicate in his complaint dated
24-01-2008, and also in the statement made by him, before the JUDGMENT Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nalagarh, that the appellant
Darshan Singh Saini belongs to an upper caste. We, therefore, find
no justification in interfering with the impugned order, on this
score also.
The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1833/2011
DARSHAN SINGH SAINI Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SOHAN SINGH & ANR. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for stay) WITH Crl.A. No. 1834/2011 (With appln(s) for stay)
Date : 23/07/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Appellant(s) Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Adv. In Crl.A.No.1833/ Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra,Adv. 2011 and for respondent in Crl.A. No.1834/2011
For Respondent(s) Ms. Minakshi Vij,Adv. In Crl.A.No.1833/ 2011 and for appellant in Crl.A. No.1834/2011 JUDGMENT
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed
judgment, which is placed on the file.
(Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kr. Chawla) Court Master AR-cum-PS