- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Darshan Singh Saini v. Sohan Singh And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
Sohan Singh, a Scheduled Caste employee of hotel-owner Darshan Singh Saini, alleged that wages were withheld and that, when he demanded arrears, the appellant and his father threatened to kill him. On 15-01-2008 Sohan Singh was allegedly abused with caste-based slurs, slapped, and assaulted. After repeated but unsuccessful attempts to lodge an FIR, he filed a written complaint on 24-01-2008 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh (District Solan, Himachal Pradesh). The Magistrate took cognizance on 06-02-2009 and summoned the appellant under Sections 341 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
Invoking Section 482 CrPC, the appellant sought quashing of the summons in the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The High Court, by order dated 08-04-2010 (2010 SCC OnLine HP 746), quashed the charges under Sections 341 and 506 IPC but held that proceedings could continue under Section 323 IPC. Both sides appealed to the Supreme Court—Darshan Singh Saini in Criminal Appeal No. 1833 of 2011 and Sohan Singh (seeking addition of charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) in Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2011.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the prosecution was barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC when cognizance was taken more than one year after the incident.
- Whether the High Court could, while quashing charges under Sections 341 and 506 IPC, direct that proceedings continue under Section 323 IPC even though the Magistrate had not originally taken cognizance of that offence.
- Whether charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 should be framed against the appellant and his father.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant Darshan Singh Saini
- Limitation: Cognizance on 06-02-2009 was beyond the one-year period prescribed in Section 468 CrPC, rendering the proceedings time-barred.
- Section 323 IPC: As the Magistrate did not take cognizance under Section 323 IPC, the High Court lacked authority to add this charge.
Respondent Sohan Singh (Cross-Appellant)
- Requested framing of charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, contending that the abuse was caste-based.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62 | Limitation under Section 468 CrPC is computed from the date of filing of the complaint, not the date of cognizance. | Relied upon to reject the appellant’s limitation argument because the complaint was filed within one year of the incident. |
| Bharat Kale v. State, (2003) 8 SCC 559 | Affirmed in Sarah Mathew as laying down the correct position on limitation. | Referenced through Sarah Mathew; supports the computation method adopted. |
| Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Shekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394 | Also affirmed in Sarah Mathew on the same point of limitation. | Cited indirectly to reinforce the rule applied. |
| Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran, 1990 Supp SCC 121 | Distinguished in Sarah Mathew; not authority for the computation question. | Mentioned only to note it is confined to its own facts and does not alter the limitation rule. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Issue 1 — Limitation: The Court held that the appellant’s calculation, which measured the limitation period up to the date of the Magistrate’s cognizance (06-02-2009), was “wholly misconceived.” Relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Sarah Mathew, it stated that the relevant date is the filing of the complaint (24-01-2008). Because the complaint was lodged only nine days after the incident of 15-01-2008, Section 468 CrPC did not bar prosecution.
Issue 2 — Addition of Section 323 IPC: The Court invoked Section 216 CrPC, which empowers “any court” to alter or add to any charge at any stage before judgment. Therefore, the High Court’s decision to proceed under Section 323 IPC, despite the Magistrate’s omission, was legally permissible.
Issue 3 — SC/ST Act Charges: In the cross-appeal, the Court observed that Sohan Singh’s complaint and sworn statement never alleged that the appellant belonged to a non-Scheduled Caste or “upper” caste. Consequently, the essential jurisdictional fact for applying the SC/ST Act was missing, and the High Court correctly declined to add those charges.
Holding and Implications
Both Criminal Appeal No. 1833 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2011 are DISMISSED.
Immediate Effect: The prosecutions will continue only under Section 323 IPC against Darshan Singh Saini; charges under Sections 341 and 506 IPC and under the SC/ST Act remain quashed or refused. No new legal principle was created, but the judgment reaffirms the limitation rule established in Sarah Mathew and confirms courts’ power under Section 216 CrPC to modify charges before judgment.
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.—
Criminal Appeal No. 1833 of 2011
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 24-1-2008, before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
5. 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 6-2-2009. A perusal of the order dated 6-2-2009 reveals, that the appellant was summoned under Sections 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860.
6. The High Court, by the impugned order 2010 SCC OnLine HP 746 dated 8-4-2010, while partly accepting the prayer of the appellant, quashed the proceedings initiated against the appellant under Sections 341 and 506 of the Penal Code, but arrived at the conclusion, that there was reasonable ground to proceed against the appellant under Section 323 of the Penal Code.
7. It was the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the impugned order 2010 SCC OnLine HP 746 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 15-1-2008, cognizance thereof was taken on 6-2-2009. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was premised on the fact, that though the complaint had been made on 24-1-2008, cognizance thereof was taken beyond a period of limitation of one year (on 6-2-2009).
8. 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 6-2-2009. The instant contention is wholly misconceived on account of the legal position declared by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (2014) 2 SCC 62 , (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 721, 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 (2003) 8 SCC 559 , 2004 SCC (Cri) 39 which is followed in Japani Sahoo (2007) 7 SCC 394 , (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 388 lays down the correct law. Krishna Pillai 1990 Supp SCC 121 , 1990 SCC (Cri) 646 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.”
9. 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 24-1-2008, with reference to an incident of 15-1-2008, 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.
10. 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 IPC, and as such, it was not permissible for the High Court to have initiated proceedings against the appellant, under Section 323 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 IPC read with Section 34 thereof (vide order dated 6-2-2009).
11. 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.
12. In the above view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No. 1834 of 2011
13. 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 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 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 24-1-2008, 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 2010 SCC OnLine HP 746, on this score also.
14. The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Alert