Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1833 OF 2011

Darshan Singh Saini ..Appellant versus

Sohan Singh and another ..Respondents WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1834 OF 2011 J U D G M E N T

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 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, he 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,

Page 2

2

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 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

Page 3

3

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 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

Page 4

4

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 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,

Page 5

5

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 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.  

…......................J. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]

NEW DELHI; …......................J. JULY 23, 2015. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]

Page 6

6

ITEM NO.102               COURT NO.4               SECTION IIB                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 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 :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

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                                 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